13 Jan 2026
CTCAE v6.0 for Data Management and Biostats: Coding, Mapping, and Analysis
For data managers, programmers, and biostatisticians, CTCAE v6.0 is not just new text—it changes dictionaries, edit checks, and how safety data can be pooled and analyzed. Handling this version correctly is central to clean submissions and credible safety narratives.
CTCAE v6.0 Structure and Native MedDRA Alignment
CTCAE v6.0 keeps the familiar concept of AE terms with five possible grades but tightens alignment with MedDRA.
Key structural points:
Every CTCAE v6.0 term is mapped to a MedDRA v28.0 lowest‑level term (LLT), enabling direct integration with coding and safety systems.
The vocabulary includes new and revised terms, particularly for lab‑based and modern therapy‑related toxicities, with obsolete or redundant entries removed.
Grading criteria for several categories have been updated, including explicit branching logic for patients with abnormal baselines.
This native alignment reduces ambiguity and supports more automated processing of AE records.
Lab Toxicity “Shake‑Up” and Metadata Requirements
v6.0 introduces a more formalized approach to lab‑based AEs.
Notable features:
Clear branching rules depending on whether baseline labs are normal or already elevated, addressing long‑standing pain points in grading chronic abnormalities.
Expectation that each AE record includes metadata such as CTCAE_VERSION, BASELINE_BRANCH, and RULE_ID to clarify how grades were derived.
For data teams, this means:
Updating EDC designs to capture baseline branch selection and applicable rule IDs.
Ensuring that lab‑to‑AE derivation logic is fully traceable and reproducible for audits and regulatory review.
Dictionary Tables, SDTM, and ADaM Implications
Standard data structures must be version‑aware:
Dictionary tables should store CTCAE term lists keyed by version, with explicit mapping to MedDRA codes.
SDTM: AE domain captures verbatim/standard terms and grades; LB domain provides raw labs used to justify lab‑based AEs; QS may hold PRO‑CTCAE data.
ADaM: Safety analysis datasets should include variables for worst grade, treatment‑emergent flags, and derived toxicity endpoints built from v6.0 definitions.
Version tracking (for example, a CTCAEV variable) is essential when pooling v5.0 and v6.0 studies.
Mapping v5.0 to v6.0 for Pooled Analyses
NCI provides mapping resources to facilitate translation from CTCAE v5.0 to v6.0, typically at the term level and sometimes with guidance on grade handling.
Best practice steps:
Use NCI mappings as the baseline, then document any sponsor‑specific overrides with clinical justification.
Flag mapped versus native v6.0 records in analysis datasets so sensitivity analyses can compare results with and without mapping.
In integrated summaries of safety, explain how mapping may affect rates of key Grade 3–4 events, particularly for hematologic and lab AEs.
Transparent mapping is crucial to avoid misleading cross‑trial comparisons.
Analytics, PRO‑CTCAE Integration, and Advanced Methods
Beyond simple incidence tables, richer methods are now being used to analyze toxicity.
Relevant developments:
Descriptive approaches (maximum post‑baseline ratings, trajectories, time‑to‑deterioration) for PRO‑CTCAE are increasingly paired with CTCAE‑based safety endpoints.
Longitudinal models (for example, toxicity‑over‑time repeated measures, GEE, ordinal log‑linear models) give deeper insight into symptom dynamics and treatment effects.
PRO‑CTCAE data can be linked with CTCAE v6.0 grades to study clinician–patient discordance and develop composite tolerability metrics.
This creates a rich analytic surface for AI/ML applications, such as predictive toxicity modeling and anomaly detection.
Quality Control and Governance
CTCAE v6.0 raises the bar for traceability and consistency:
QC should include cross‑checks between AE and lab domains to ensure lab‑based grades are plausible and correctly branched.
Inter‑study consistency checks around key toxicities can detect systemic mis‑grading or mapping issues.
Governance committees should own CTCAE version policies, mapping standards, and documentation expectations.
Handled well, CTCAE v6.0 turns toxicity data into a more reliable, machine‑readable asset across portfolios.
For data managers, programmers, and biostatisticians, CTCAE v6.0 is not just new text—it changes dictionaries, edit checks, and how safety data can be pooled and analyzed. Handling this version correctly is central to clean submissions and credible safety narratives.
CTCAE v6.0 Structure and Native MedDRA Alignment
CTCAE v6.0 keeps the familiar concept of AE terms with five possible grades but tightens alignment with MedDRA.
Key structural points:
Every CTCAE v6.0 term is mapped to a MedDRA v28.0 lowest‑level term (LLT), enabling direct integration with coding and safety systems.
The vocabulary includes new and revised terms, particularly for lab‑based and modern therapy‑related toxicities, with obsolete or redundant entries removed.
Grading criteria for several categories have been updated, including explicit branching logic for patients with abnormal baselines.
This native alignment reduces ambiguity and supports more automated processing of AE records.
Lab Toxicity "Shake‑Up" and Metadata Requirements
v6.0 introduces a more formalized approach to lab‑based AEs.
Notable features:
Clear branching rules depending on whether baseline labs are normal or already elevated, addressing long‑standing pain points in grading chronic abnormalities.
Expectation that each AE record includes metadata such as CTCAE_VERSION, BASELINE_BRANCH, and RULE_ID to clarify how grades were derived.
For data teams, this means:
Updating EDC designs to capture baseline branch selection and applicable rule IDs.
Ensuring that lab‑to‑AE derivation logic is fully traceable and reproducible for audits and regulatory review.
Dictionary Tables, SDTM, and ADaM Implications
Standard data structures must be version‑aware:
Dictionary tables should store CTCAE term lists keyed by version, with explicit mapping to MedDRA codes.
SDTM: AE domain captures verbatim/standard terms and grades; LB domain provides raw labs used to justify lab‑based AEs; QS may hold PRO‑CTCAE data.
ADaM: Safety analysis datasets should include variables for worst grade, treatment‑emergent flags, and derived toxicity endpoints built from v6.0 definitions.
Version tracking (for example, a CTCAEV variable) is essential when pooling v5.0 and v6.0 studies.
Mapping v5.0 to v6.0 for Pooled Analyses
NCI provides mapping resources to facilitate translation from CTCAE v5.0 to v6.0, typically at the term level and sometimes with guidance on grade handling.
Best practice steps:
Use NCI mappings as the baseline, then document any sponsor‑specific overrides with clinical justification.
Flag mapped versus native v6.0 records in analysis datasets so sensitivity analyses can compare results with and without mapping.
In integrated summaries of safety, explain how mapping may affect rates of key Grade 3–4 events, particularly for hematologic and lab AEs.
Transparent mapping is crucial to avoid misleading cross‑trial comparisons.
Analytics, PRO‑CTCAE Integration, and Advanced Methods
Beyond simple incidence tables, richer methods are now being used to analyze toxicity.
Relevant developments:
Descriptive approaches (maximum post‑baseline ratings, trajectories, time‑to‑deterioration) for PRO‑CTCAE are increasingly paired with CTCAE‑based safety endpoints.
Longitudinal models (for example, toxicity‑over‑time repeated measures, GEE, ordinal log‑linear models) give deeper insight into symptom dynamics and treatment effects.
PRO‑CTCAE data can be linked with CTCAE v6.0 grades to study clinician–patient discordance and develop composite tolerability metrics.
This creates a rich analytic surface for AI/ML applications, such as predictive toxicity modeling and anomaly detection.
Quality Control and Governance
CTCAE v6.0 raises the bar for traceability and consistency:
QC should include cross‑checks between AE and lab domains to ensure lab‑based grades are plausible and correctly branched.
Inter‑study consistency checks around key toxicities can detect systemic mis‑grading or mapping issues.
Governance committees should own CTCAE version policies, mapping standards, and documentation expectations.
Handled well, CTCAE v6.0 turns toxicity data into a more reliable, machine‑readable asset across portfolios.
Back to Blog