15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals : a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis
© 2023 The Author(s)..
Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies.
Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL).
Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations.
Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care.
Funding: None.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:68 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
EClinicalMedicine - 68(2024) vom: 01. Feb., Seite 102413 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Paravathaneni, Mahati [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Journal Article |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 01.02.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102413 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM367643022 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM367643022 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240201232213.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240126s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102413 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1277.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM367643022 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38273886 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Paravathaneni, Mahati |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a 15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals |b a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 01.02.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies | ||
| 520 | |a Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL) | ||
| 520 | |a Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations | ||
| 520 | |a Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care | ||
| 520 | |a Funding: None | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Patient reported outcomes | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Prostate cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Renal cell cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Urothelial cancer | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Safa, Houssein |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Joshi, Vidhu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tamil, Monica K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Adashek, Jacob J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ionescu, Filip |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shah, Savan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chadha, Juskaran S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gilbert, Scott |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Manley, Brandon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Semaan, Adele |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jim, Heather S L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kalos, Denise |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kim, Youngchul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Spiess, Philippe E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chahoud, Jad |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t EClinicalMedicine |d 2018 |g 68(2024) vom: 01. Feb., Seite 102413 |w (DE-627)NLM289300495 |x 2589-5370 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:68 |g year:2024 |g day:01 |g month:02 |g pages:102413 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102413 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 68 |j 2024 |b 01 |c 02 |h 102413 | ||