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

Revitalizing oncology medications access in Saudi Arabia: Current challenges and recommendations by the Saudi Oncology Pharmacy Assembly

BackgroundCancer care is posing immense challenges to healthcare systems globally. Advances in screening, monitoring, and treating cancer improved patient outcomes and survival rates yet amplified the disease burden. Multiple barriers might impede early access to innovative therapies. We thoroughly examined the current challenges in oncology medication access in Saudi Arabia and provided consensus recommendations to revitalize the process.MethodsA focus group discussion was conducted. Expert healthcare providers (pharmacists and physicians) were invited to participate based on prespecified criteria. The research team conducted a qualitative analysis of the discussion to identify themes and formulate recommendations.ResultsFourteen experts were equally distributed into two groups, limiting the number in each group to 7. Pharmacists were 12 (∼86%), and physicians were 2 (∼14%). Ten were practicing in governmental hospitals, four representing different sectors; regulatory bodies, including Ministry of Health, National Unified Procurement Company, and Saudi Food and Drug Authority. Five themes were identified: national cancer burden, local data availability, pharmacoeconomic evaluation, patients reported outcomes, administration, and procurement. Consensus recommendations were formulated to optimize the formulary management process, enabling informed decision-making and facilitating early medication access for cancer patients.ConclusionsThe formulary management process can be enhanced by addressing the national cancer burden, promoting local data availability, conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations, focusing on patient outcomes, and improving administration and procurement procedures. Implementing these recommendations can improve access to oncology medications and improve patient care outcomes in Saudi Arabia.

Belzutifan for renal cell carcinoma: Balancing regulatory approval with societal and patient impact

LITESPARK-005 evaluated belzutifan against everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC),1 demonstrating significant progression-free survival improvement but failing to meet the overall survival (OS) co-primary endpoint. Despite FDA approval, the trial highlights key obstacles in drug development in RCC, given the absence of OS improvement, lack of biomarker studies, high financial toxicity, and limited accessibility outside the United States.

Increasing Life Expectancy in Patients with Genitourinary Malignancies: Impact of Treatment Burden on Disease Management and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment burden refers to the overall impact of medical treatments on a patient's well-being and daily life. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of treatment burden on quality of life (QoL) in patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies, highlighting the importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials to inform treatment decisions and improve patient care.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of clinical trials focused on GU malignancy (prostate, bladder, and kidney) between January 2000 and June 2024, analyzing related PROs and findings regarding treatment burden.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Recent landmark clinical trials demonstrate significant improvements in overall survival across GU malignancies with novel therapies. However, the reporting of QoL outcomes in these trials is often inadequate, with many lacking comprehensive data or long-term impact. Current publications are increasingly evaluating treatment burden and its impact on patient well-being as a critical outcome, but most clinical trials to date have failed to assess treatment burden across key domains including financial, time and travel, and medication management.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

While advancements in treatment have extended longevity in patients with GU malignancies, the treatment burden associated with the receipt of novel agents and its implications for QoL remain inadequately uncharacterized.

Analyses of quality of life in cancer drug trials - a review of measurements and analytical choices in post-reimbursement studies

OBJECTIVES

For drugs reimbursed with limited evidence of patient benefits, confirmatory evidence of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) benefits is important. For QoL data to serve as valuable input to patients and decision-makers, it must be measured and analyzed using appropriate methods. We aimed to assess the measurement and analyses of post-reimbursement QoL data for cancer drugs introduced in Swedish healthcare with limited evidence at the time of reimbursement.

METHODS

We reviewed any published post-reimbursement trial data on QoL for cancer drugs reimbursed in Sweden between 2010 and 2020 with limited evidence of improvement in QoL and OS benefits at the time of reimbursement. We extracted information on the instruments used, frequency of measurement, extent of missing data, statistical approaches, and the use of pre-registration and study protocols.

RESULTS

Out of 22 drugs satisfying our inclusion criteria, we identified published QoL data for 12 drugs in 22 studies covering multiple cancer types. The most frequently used QoL instruments were EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3/5L. We identified three areas needing improvement in QoL measurement and analysis: (i) motivation for the frequency of measurements, (ii) handling of the substantial missing data problem, and (iii) inclusion and adherence to QoL analyses in clinical trial pre-registration and study protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that the measurements and analysis of QoL data in our sample of cancer trials covering drugs initially reimbursed without any confirmed QoL or OS evidence have significant room for improvement. The increasing use of QoL assessments must be accompanied by a stricter adherence to best-practice guidelines to provide valuable input to patients and decision-makers.

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

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.

Patient-reported Outcome Measurement and Reporting for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use of this information for treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients in real-world settings is facilitated by consistent and transparent reporting of trial methods.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare PROMs used in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials in terms of the rationale for the choice of measure, endpoint hierarchy (primary, secondary, exploratory), assessment time points, statistical methods, and statistical metrics for interpretation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature review via searches of four online databases (2016-2021) and recent conference abstracts (2019-2021) identified 2616 articles, of which 33 were included in the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Among the 33 clinical studies included, 19 different PROMs were identified: three kidney cancer-specific scales, two cancer-specific scales, two generic scales, and 12 symptom-specific scales. The endpoint hierarchy for patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was reported in 42% of the studies; one study included PROs as a primary endpoint. Reporting of time points, minimal important differences, and statistical analyses was highly heterogeneous.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of PROMs have been included in clinical studies for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC. Prespecified analyses for PRO assessments were generally not stated, while analytical methods and reporting varied. An improvement in alignment across studies would better inform regulatory, market-access, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making to improve patient care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed how the impact of cancer therapies on health outcomes from the patient's point of view is being measured in clinical trials for kidney cancer. The techniques and reporting varied across trials. Standardisation of how these data are captured and reported may improve care and decision-making for patients with kidney cancer.

Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.

METHODS

Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.

CONCLUSION

While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.

Patient-reported outcomes in CD30-directed CAR-T cells against relapsed/refractory CD30+ lymphomas

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells targeting CD30 have demonstrated high response rates with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory CD30+ hematologic malignancies, particularly classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This therapy has low rates of toxicity including cytokine release syndrome with no neurotoxicity observed in our phase 2 study. We collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on patients treated with CD30 directed CAR-T cells to evaluate the impact of this therapy on their symptom experience. We collected PROs including PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Global Health and Physical Function questionnaires and selected symptom questions from the NCI PRO-CTCAE in patients enrolled on our clinical trial of CD30-directed CAR-T cells at procurement, at time of CAR-T cell infusion, and at various time points post treatment. We compared PROMIS scores and overall symptom burden between pre-procurement, time of infusion, and at 4 weeks post infusion. At least one PRO measurement during the study period was found in 23 out of the 28 enrolled patients. Patient overall symptom burden, global health and mental health, and physical function were at or above baseline levels at 4 weeks post CAR-T cell infusion. In addition, PROMIS scores for patients who participated in the clinical trial were similar to the average healthy population. CD30 CAR-T cell therapy has a favorable toxicity profile with patient physical function and symptom burden recovering to at least their baseline pretreatment health by 1 month post infusion. Trial registration number: NCT02690545.

Assessment of Symptoms and Adverse Events Related to Immunotherapy in Patients With Cancer: An Integrative Review

CONTEXT

Clinical practice guidelines advocate for routine assessment of symptoms and adverse events during immunotherapy treatment of cancer. Outside the clinical trial setting, there are few examples of such assessment in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, appraise, and synthesize the available literature regarding the assessment of immune-related symptoms and adverse events in patients with cancer beyond the clinical trial setting. Specifically, we aimed to identify the measurement instruments used, who completes these and when.

METHODS

We completed an integrative review following established methods including a systematic literature search of electronic databases, a dual process for screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction. We included primary studies (retrospective or prospective) reporting the use of instruments or strategies to assess symptoms or adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. Outcomes of interest included: 1) how immune-related symptoms and adverse events were assessed; 2) types of assessment instruments; 3) frequency of instrument use and mode of administration; 4) the reported duration and intensity of symptoms and 5) adverse events and associated management strategies. Data were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

We screened 2138 articles and included 16 articles representing 2553 patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy. All articles were published between 2018 and 2022 and were of sound methodological quality. Seven studies were retrospective chart reviews, and the remaining studies prospectively collected data, with seven collecting patient reported outcomes. In studies where data were collected at more than one time point (n = 6), weekly assessment during immunotherapy was the most common frequency. The potential for implementation of assessment into routine clinical practice was described in just four studies.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for routine assessment of symptoms and adverse events during immunotherapy treatment for cancer, there are few examples of how this is undertaken in clinical practice. The use of patient reported outcome measures to assess toxicity from immunotherapy is uncommon but offers the potential to identify symptoms early and facilitate timely intervention. Our review highlights the available instruments, how they have been used and the need for more applied research in this field to optimize patient outcomes.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022

Background

With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs.

Methods

The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents.

Findings

Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements.

Interpretation

This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma trials using combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment

Over the past 5 years, several new immunotherapy treatments have been tested for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials assessing combinations of different immunotherapies, or of an immunotherapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), have reported improved clinical outcomes compared with the standard of care - that is, treatments using TKIs alone. However, to understand the holistic impact of new treatments on patients, physicians must also consider effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on HRQoL are often treated as a secondary outcome in clinical trials, their collection and reporting are non-standardized and, therefore, difficult to compare and interpret. However, results from six clinical trials indicate that two immunotherapy treatments overwhelmingly outperform sunitinib in HRQoL measurements: nivolumab plus cabozantinib (CheckMate 9ER) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (IMmotion151). An additional two treatments generally outperform sunitinib: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 214) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR). Of three studies that reported no difference from sunitinib, two suffered design flaws that might have obscured HRQoL benefits (JAVELIN Renal 101 and KEYNOTE-426). To ensure future HRQoL data are of the highest quality and comparable across trials, future studies should adopt best practices for the design, analysis and reporting of PROMs.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Considerations in Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meetings (2016-2021)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to gain insight into the role of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) reviews and recommendations by documenting PRO-related considerations that appear in transcripts of ODAC meetings over a 6-year period (2016-2021).

METHODS

ODAC meeting transcripts were reviewed for any mention of PRO-related concepts. Meetings that reviewed biosimilars and meetings that discussed conceptual matters were excluded. For each identified transcript, the meeting date, brand and generic names of the drug, and indication were collected from the meeting minutes. Comments by ODAC members, FDA reviewers, and study sponsors on PRO data were captured during the review. Qualitative review of transcripts included both reading and searching for key terms, including PROs, quality of life, and health-related quality of life. Discussion of PRO-related topics was captured verbatim, organized thematically, and analyzed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven transcripts of reviews were identified for 2016-2021. Topics related to PROs were included in 12 of those 27 reviews. The ODAC was satisfied with PROs included in 2 of those 12 reviews. Reasons for dissatisfaction in 10 of the 12 reviews included key concepts not assessed (5/12), missing data (5/12), and disagreement with sponsors' interpretation (3/12). The ODAC also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of PRO data in 6 of 15 reviews that did not include PROs.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of ODAC reviews in 2016-2021 included PROs, and reviewers expressed frustration at the lack of PRO data. Even when included, evidence on the basis of PROs was rarely deemed adequate for benefit-risk assessments.

Reliability and validity of the simplified Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator

PURPOSE

This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the immune checkpoint modulator (ICM) subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator (FACT-ICM) scale and to validate the FACT-ICM scale in Chinese cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment.

METHODS

In total, 354 cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in our cross-sectional study including 2 phases. Firstly, the ICM subscale was translated and culturally adapted by standardized procedures. Then the FACT-ICM scale was validated, which included item analysis, content validity, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent/divergent validity, and known-group validity.

RESULTS

The content validity indexes at the item and scale level of the ICM subscale were greater than 0.8. No floor and ceiling effects were found. The Cronbach's α and McDonald's omega coefficients of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale were 0.935 and 0.936, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.833 (95% confidence interval: 0.574-0.940). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-subscale structure of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale (χ²/df = 2.144, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.072, and CFI = 0.848). Convergent and divergent validity further supported the construct validity of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale. The known-group validity of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale was confirmed in patients with different physical statuses.

CONCLUSIONS

The simplified Chinese version of the FACT-ICM scale is a valid and reliable instrument and can be used in clinical practice and research on cancer patients receiving ICIs treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Patients with HIV

Elevated cancer-specific mortality in PWH has been demonstrated for non-AIDS-defining malignancies. However, additional clinical endpoints of interest, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), have not been systematically examined in PWH and cancer. We evaluated differences in patient-reported symptomology between cancer patients with versus without HIV using data from 12,529 patients at the Moffitt Cancer Center, including 55 with HIV. The symptoms were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which asks patients to rank 12 symptoms on a scale of 1−10, with scores ≥7 considered severe. The responses across all questions were summed to create a composite score. Vital status through t July 2021 was determined through linkage to the electronic health record. PWH reported a higher composite ESAS score on average (44.4) compared to HIV-uninfected cancer patients (30.7, p-value < 0.01). In zero-inflated negative binomial regression models adjusted for cancer site, sex, and race, the composite ESAS scores and the count of severe symptoms were 1.41 times (95% CI: 1.13−1.77) and 1.45 times (95% CI: 1.09−1.93) higher, respectively, in cancer patients with HIV. Among PWH, higher ESAS scores were associated with mortality (p-value = 0.02). This is the first demonstration of uniquely poor PROs in PWH and cancer and suggests that patient symptom monitoring to improve clinical endpoints deserves further study.

Statistical methods and graphical displays of quality of life with survival outcomes in oncology clinical trials for supporting the estimand framework

Background

Although there are discussions regarding standards of the analysis of patient-reported outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in oncology clinical trials, that of QOL with death events is not within their scope. For example, ignoring death can lead to bias in the QOL analysis for patients with moderate or high mortality rates in the palliative care setting. This is discussed in the estimand framework but is controversial. Information loss by summary measures under the estimand framework may make it challenging for clinicians to interpret the QOL analysis results. This study illustrated the use of graphical displays in the framework. They can be helpful for discussions between clinicians and statisticians and decision-making by stakeholders.

Methods

We reviewed the time-to-deterioration analysis, prioritized composite outcome approach, semi-competing risk analysis, survivor analysis, linear mixed model for repeated measures, and principal stratification approach. We summarized attributes of estimands and graphs in the statistical analysis and evaluated them in various hypothetical randomized controlled trials.

Results

Graphs for each analysis method provide different information and impressions. In the time-to-deterioration analysis, it was not easy to interpret the difference in the curves as an effect on QOL. The prioritized composite outcome approach provided new insights for QOL considering death by defining better conditions based on the distinction of OS and QOL. The semi-competing risk analysis provided different insights compared with the time-to-deterioration analysis and prioritized composite outcome approach. Due to the missing assumption, graphs by the linear mixed model for repeated measures should be carefully interpreted, even for descriptive purposes. The principal stratification approach provided pure comparison, but the interpretation was difficult because the target population was unknown.

Conclusions

Graphical displays can capture different aspects of treatment effects that should be described in the estimand framework.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01735-1.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials regarding inflammatory bowel disease: a methodological study

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials pertaining to inflammatory bowel disease are important in identifying patients' perspective of treatment. Incompletely reported PROs within trials could misrepresent information for clinicians and may contribute to treatment which lacks accommodation of patient input. Our study evaluates completeness of reporting of PROs and risk of bias (RoB) to identify how well trialists are adhering to known resources for trials. We used MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible trials from 2006 to 2020 with at least 1 PRO measure related to inflammatory bowel disease. The trials were screened in duplicate using Rayyan. We then compared trial completion of reporting to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO adaptation, and assessed RoB using the Cochrane Collaboration RoB 2.0 tool. To measure trial and reporting characteristics, we performed bivariate regression analyses. Among a sample of 29 trials, the mean completion percentage for CONSORT-PRO was 46.77%. We found PROs as a secondary outcome had significantly lower CONSORT-PRO reporting (p<0.05). In addition, per cent completeness of reporting was significantly higher with both a 'therapy' intervention, and trials published following the development of CONSORT-PRO (p<0.05). Incomplete PRO reporting is common in trials focused on inflammatory bowel disease. This suboptimal reporting indicates the need for adherence to reporting guidelines. Trialists should use the CONSORT-PRO checklist, as endorsed by Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders, to assess their studies in order to enhance reporting adherence.

Analysis of patient reported outcomes included in the registrational clinical trials of nivolumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

•

Patients’ perspectives are at the center of value-based oncology care.

•

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) guide clinical and regulatory decisions.

•

PRO instruments do not capture immune-related adverse events in clinical trials.

•

Studies did not accurately report PROs after treatment discontinuation.

•

Precise analyses of longitudinal effects of nivolumab on PROs were lacking.

In the era of value-based oncology care, stakeholders are increasingly using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to guide clinical and regulatory decisions. PROs are also included in health technology assessments to guide patient access, drug reimbursement and pricing. We reviewed PROs collected in the United States Food and Drug Administration approved indications of nivolumab in advanced NSCLC. We analyzed the PRO data reported in the CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), CheckMate 057 (NCT01673867), and CheckMate 017 (NCT01642004) registrational clinical trials, and concluded that nivolumab alleviated symptom burden and improved health status of patients in this setting. However, inability of the included PRO instruments to measure immune-related adverse events, differences in the timing of PRO evaluation between treatment groups, incomplete patient participation at all time points, limited patient participation in the later time points, and interpretation of the longitudinal data are key challenges that impede accurate analysis and validation of PROs.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Protocol Content and Reporting for Clinical Trials that Lead to the approval of frontline Immune Checkpoint Blockade Combination for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma - The Patients' Voice or a Missed Opportunity

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a rapidly emerging field of oncology that has revolutionized the metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment. Four recent treatment regimens Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Cabozantinib, and Pembrolizumab-Lenvatinib-have demonstrated improved clinical endpoints compared to standard of care and are endorsed by NCCN (2021). However, data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients receiving these regimens are limited. We conducted a comparative assessment of the quality and standardization of PROs endpoints and data reported for these randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically identified all RCTs evaluating combination ICB for ccRCC. PROs-specific data were abstracted from the final version of 4 RCT protocols, as well as clinical and PROs specific manuscripts published between April 2018 and April 2021. We used 3 previously published guides standardizing PROs research to objectively score the data: (i) 24-point PROEAS; (ii) 12-point SPIRIT-PRO; and (iii) 14-point CONSORT-PRO.

RESULTS

The CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, CheckMate 9ER, and CLEAR studies had PROEAS scores of 88% (21/24), 37% (9/24), 83% (20/24), and 16% (4/24), respectively, and SPIRIT-PRO scores of 50% (6/12), 75% (9/12), 66% (8/12), and 41% (5/12) respectively. The CONSORT-PRO scores were 86% (12/14) for CheckMate 214 and 43% (6/14) for CheckMate 9ER, but scores were not available for the CLEAR and KEYNOTE 426 studies because of a lack of sufficient data. The average SPIRIT-PRO score across the 4 RCTs was 58%, indicating a reasonable adoption of PROs research in data management and analysis. The CheckMate 214 trial had the longest follow-up and most comprehensive published PROs data.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis identified the limitations of current PROs data in combination ICB approved for mRCC. This analysis will enable clinicians to better interpret the current PROs results and emphasize the importance of better incorporation of PROs endpoints in future mRCC trial design.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

The current issues and future perspective of artificial intelligence for developing new treatment strategy in non-small cell lung cancer: harmonization of molecular cancer biology and artificial intelligence

Comprehensive analysis of omics data, such as genome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, and interactome, is a crucial technique for elucidating the complex mechanism of cancer onset and progression. Recently, a variety of new findings have been reported based on multi-omics analysis in combination with various clinical information. However, integrated analysis of multi-omics data is extremely labor intensive, making the development of new analysis technology indispensable. Artificial intelligence (AI), which has been under development in recent years, is quickly becoming an effective approach to reduce the labor involved in analyzing large amounts of complex data and to obtain valuable information that is often overlooked in manual analysis and experiments. The use of AI, such as machine learning approaches and deep learning systems, allows for the efficient analysis of massive omics data combined with accurate clinical information and can lead to comprehensive predictive models that will be desirable for further developing individual treatment strategies of immunotherapy and molecular target therapy. Here, we aim to review the potential of AI in the integrated analysis of omics data and clinical information with a special focus on recent advances in the discovery of new biomarkers and the future direction of personalized medicine in non-small lung cancer.