Ctcae v4 03

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 Viewer (English/Japanese) You can search, browse and bookmark CTCAE v4.0 by following languages.・English・Japanese (JCOG Edition)[Including Data]・CTCAE v4.03/MedDRA v12.0 (Japanese description : MedDRA/J v20.1) SEP 12, 2017 revised edition. What’s New May 11, 2022Version 1.8.1 Fix bug.Update to latest SDKs. App Privacy The developer, TAKAFUMI MIZUGUCHI, indicated that the app’s privacy practices may include handling of data as described below. For more information, see the developer’s privacy policy. Data Not Linked to You The following data may be collected but it is not linked to your identity: Usage Data Diagnostics Privacy practices may vary, for example, based on the features you use or your age. Learn More Information Seller TAKAFUMI MIZUGUCHI Size 17.7 MB Category Medical Compatibility iPhone Requires iOS 12.0 or later. iPad Requires iPadOS 12.0 or later. iPod touch Requires iOS 12.0 or later. Mac Requires macOS 11.0 or later and a Mac with Apple M1 chip or later. Apple Vision Requires visionOS 1.0 or later. Languages English, Japanese Age Rating 12+ Infrequent/Mild Medical/Treatment Information Copyright © 2012-2022 Takafumi Mizuguchi Price Free In-App Purchases Remove Ads $3.99 Developer Website App Support Privacy Policy Developer Website App Support Privacy Policy More By This Developer You Might Also Like

ReferencesTrotti, A., Colevas, A. D., Setser, A., Rusch, V., Jaques, D., Budach, V., et al. (2003). CTCAE v3.0: Development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse events of cancer treatment. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 13, 176–181.Article PubMed Google Scholar National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Published May 28, 2009; Revised version 4.03 June 14, 2010 (Vol. Available from: Accessed 20 May 2013).Basch, E. (2010). The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(10), 865–869. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0911494.Article CAS PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncology, 7, 903–909. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X.Article PubMed Google Scholar Basch, E., Jia, X., Heller, G., Barz, A., Sit, L., Fruscione, M., et al. (2009). Adverse symptom event reporting by patients versus clinicians: Relationships with clinical outcomes. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(23), 1624–1632. doi:10.1093/jnci/djp386.Article PubMed Google Scholar Atkinson, T. M., Li, Y., Coffey, C. W., Sit, L., Shaw, M., Lavene, D., et al. (2012). Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1159–1164. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4.Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar Xiao, C., Polomano, R., & Bruner, D. W. (2012). Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-observed symptoms in oncology. Cancer Nursing,. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e318269040f. Google Scholar Greimel, E. R., Bjelic-Radisic, V., Pfisterer, J., Hilpert, F., Daghofer, F., Pujade-Lauraine, E., et al. (2011). Toxicity and quality of life outcomes in ovarian cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(9), 1421–1427. doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0969-8.Article PubMed Google Scholar Flores, L. T., Bennett, A. V., Law, E. B., Hajj, C., Griffith, M. P., & Goodman, K. A. (2012). Patient-reported outcomes versus clinician symptom reporting during chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Gastrointestinal Cancer Research, 5(4), 119–124.PubMed Google Scholar Basch, E., Iasonos, A., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., Artz, D., et al. (2007). Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients

Multiregional contexts (pp. 177–190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairy, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–161). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Google Scholar Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar Basch, E. (2012). Beyond the FDA PRO guidance: Steps toward integrating meaningful patient-reported outcomes into regulatory trials and US drug labels. Value in Health, 15(3), 401–403. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.1385.Article PubMed Google Scholar Symptom Management and Quality of Life Steering Committee. Clinical trials planning meeting—building bridges: The identification of core symptoms and health-related quality of life domains for use in cancer research (September 22–23, 2011. Available from: Accessed 7 June 2012).Mitchell, S. A., Lang, K., Nichols, C., Clauser, S. B., Federico, V., Lalla, D., et al. (2012). Validation of the NCI Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in women receiving treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Google Scholar Dueck, A. C., Mendoza, T., Mitchell, S. A., Reeve, B. B., Castro, K., Denicoff, A., et al. (2012). Validity and reliability of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Google Scholar Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x.Article PubMed Google Scholar (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research—The PCORI perspective. JAMA, 307(15), 1636–1640. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.466.Download references