Pitfalls in grading severity of chemotherapy-induced XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1897 @entity137 @entity2359
BACKGROUND: Reliable reporting of chemotherapy-induced @entity2359 is important. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate the differences in the peripheral @entity2359 sections of several widely used chemotherapy-related @entity137 grading systems, and the differences in the way in which observers interpret these scales. @entity1 AND METHODS: Two neurologists independently rated the severity of chemotherapy-induced @entity1897 , according to WHO, ECOG, Ajani, and NCIC-CTC criteria in 37 @entity1 . RESULTS: The highest percentage grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 peripheral @entity2359 was noted when employing the WHO, Ajani and NCIC-CTC scales, respectively. Percentage inter-observer agreement across all grades of severity ranged from 45.9 (NCIC-CTC) to 83.8 (WHO). The degree of agreement varied from 'poor to fair' to 'substantial'. Percentage inter-observer agreement for the dichotomy grade < or = 2 and grade 3 ranged from 81.1 (NCIC-CTC) to 94.6 (Ajani and WHO), however, exact agreement on grade 3 peripheral @entity2359 ranged from 0 (Ajani and WHO) to 42% (NCIC-CTC). Percentage interscale agreement for the dichotomy grade < or = 2 and grade 3 varied from 67.6 (WHO and NCIC-CTC) to 100 (WHO and ECOG). Interobserver disagreement of severity grading was partly due to different interpretation of scale parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that caution should be used in interpreting results across studies using different scales for @entity2359 grading in chemotherapy-related @entity1897 . When (multicentre) trials are to be undertaken with potential @entity2359 or neuroprotective agents, consensus should be sought regarding the @entity137 rating scale used, and its interpretation by participating physicians.
