Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient centeredness in clinical trials; however, in the field of rapidly emerging and clinically impressive immunotherapy, data on PROs are limited.

Methods

We systematically identified all immunotherapy approvals from 2011 through 2018 and assessed the analytic tools and reporting quality of associated PRO reports. For randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we developed a novel 24-point scoring scale: the PRO Endpoints Analysis Score based on 24 criteria derived from the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

Results

We assessed 44 trial publications supporting 42 immunotherapy approvals. PROs were published for 21 of the 44 (47.7%) trial publications. Twenty-three trials (52.3%) were RCTs and 21 (47.7%) pertained to single-arm trials. The median time between primary clinical outcomes publications and their corresponding secondary PRO publications was 19 months (interquartile range = 9-29 months). Of the 21 PRO reports, 4 (19.0%) reported a specific hypothesis, and most (85.7%) used descriptive statistics. Three (3 of 21 [14.3%]) studies performed a control for type I error. As for RCTs, 14 of 23 (60.9%) published PRO data, including 13 (56.5%) that published a secondary dedicated manuscript. One-half of these 14 trials scored less than 13 points on the 24-point PRO Endpoints Analysis Score. The mean score was 12.71 (range = 5-17, SD = 3.71), and none met all the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

Conclusions

Suboptimal reporting of PROs occurs regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to maximize the value of these data in cancer immunotherapy development and approval.

SUBMITTER: Safa H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8096374 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Representative racial/ethnic participation in research, especially in clinical trials that establish standards of care, is necessary to minimize disparities in outcomes and to uphold societal equity in health care. Objective:To evaluate the frequency of race reporting and proportional race representation in trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Database study of all reported trials supporting FDA oncology drug approvals granted between July 2008 and June 2018. Primary reports of trials were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Food and Drug Administration approvals were identified using the FDA archives. The US population-based cancer estimates by race were calculated using National Cancer Institute-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and US Census databases. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes were the proportion of trials reporting race and the proportion of patients by race participating in trials. Secondary outcomes included race subgroup analyses reporting and gaps between race proportion in trials and the US population. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and ?2 tests were used to analyze the data. Proportions and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were reported. Results:Among 230 trials with a total of 112?293 participants, 145 (63.0%) reported on at least 1 race, 18 (7.8%) documented the 4 major races in the United States (white, Asian, black, and Hispanic), and 58 (25.2%) reported race subgroup analyses. Reporting on white, Asian, black, and Hispanic races was included in 144 (62.6%), 110 (47.8%), 88 (38.2%), and 23 (10.0%) trials, respectively. Between July 2008 and June 2013 vs July 2013 and June 2018, the number of trials reporting race (45 [56.6%] vs 100 [67.1%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93-2.87; P?=?.09) and race subgroup analysis (13 [16.1%] vs 45 [30.2%]; OR, 2.26, 95% CI, 1.16-4.67; P?=?.03) changed minimally and varied across races. Whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics represented 76.3%, 18.3%, 3.1% and 6.1% of trial participants, respectively, and the proportion for each race enrolled over time changed nominally (blacks, 3.6% vs 2.9% and Hispanics, 5.3% vs 6.7%) from July 2008 to June 2013 vs July 2013 to June 2018. Compared with their proportion of US cancer incidence, blacks (22% of expected) and Hispanics (44% of expected) were underrepresented compared with whites (98% of expected) and Asians (438% of expected). Conclusions and Relevance:Race and race subgroup analysis reporting occurs infrequently, and black and Hispanic races are consistently underrepresented compared with their burden of cancer incidence in landmark trials that led to FDA oncology drug approvals. Enhanced minority engagement is needed in trials to ensure the validity of results and reliable benefits to all.

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Selection of specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for cancer patients requires careful consideration to the purpose and population at aim. Here we report the process of choosing which items to include in a bladder cancer population in chemo- or immunotherapy based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS:Initial PRO-CTCAE symptoms were chosen through 1) medical record audit 2) patient interviews 3) summary of product characteristics from European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration for the applied chemotherapies, and 4) toxicity reporting from Phase 2 and 3 trials for immunotherapies applied in patients with urothelial cancer. The selected questions were applied in a prospective cohort of 78 bladder cancer patients receiving chemo- or immunotherapy at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark. Symptoms tested in this population were selected for the final module if they appeared in ?3 of the following groupings a) the most prevalent PRO-CTCAE symptoms grade???2 overall during treatment b) the PRO-CTCAE symptoms reported in conjunction with hospital admissions or mentioned in focus group interviews discussing which symptoms were prevalent in this patient group with specialized c) nurses or d) physicians. The authors also included symptoms in the final module if they were present in two of the above groups and defined as actionable by clinicians. RESULTS:From the initial selection of PRO-CTCAE symptoms, a total of 45 PRO-CTCAE symptoms explored by 84 PRO-CTCAE questions were retrieved. Through the second selection process based on the described criteria, the study group agreed on 15 PRO-CTCAE symptoms explored by 30 PRO-CTCAE items to be appropriate and relevant for the bladder population during medical oncological treatment. CONCLUSIONS:The selection of disease specific PROs in a bladder cancer population was feasible. The process revealed several steps of selection needed in order to reach a final module for clinical application.