Table 3.

Clinical Investigator and Patient Feedback Surveys

Survey Item	Respondents, No. (%)
Clinical Investigator Feedbacka
Patient-reported symptomatic toxicities
Were reviewed at visits	131/143 (91.6)
Were discussed with patients at visits	110/144 (76.4)
Are useful for monitoring toxicities	133/141 (94.3)
Could be a source of research-grade data	120/143 (83.9)
Were an accurate reflection of patient clinical status	119/143 (83.2)
Impression of relationship between adverse event grade severities reported by patients vs clinicians
They are generally the same	63/143 (44.1)
Patients generally grade more severe than clinicians	50/143 (35.0)
Patients generally grade less severe than clinicians	13/143 (9.1)
Don’t know	17/143 (11.9)
Patient Feedbackb
Person who entered symptom grades
Myself	220/250 (88.0)
Relative or friend	5/250 (2.0)
Professional caregiver	16/250 (6.4)
Other	9/250 (3.6)
The patient adverse event reporting system
Was easy to use	234/251 (93.2)
Was useful	230/247 (93.1)
Improved discussions with mydoctor/nurse	211/247 (85.4)

^aOverall, there were 144 clinical investigator respondents across 37 sites, but not all investigators responded to all questions; therefore, the denominator for each question varies with missing responses subtracted.

^bOverall, there were 252 patient respondents of 285 study participants, but not all patients responded to all questions; therefore, the denominator for each question varies with missing responses subtracted.