Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Discerning critical stressors and resources in the lives of cancer patients: A multivariate analysis of targets of intervention for enhancing cancer care and quality of life

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the relationship between a broad variety of stressors, resources, and outcomes to identify targets of intervention to enhance the quality of life of cancer patients and contribute to a comprehensive model of cancer care.

METHODS

Five hundred and sixty persons with a diagnosis of cancer completed measures of stressors (past negative life events, current problems, current symptoms, comorbidities), resources (coping self-efficacy, social support, satisfaction with care) and outcomes (emotional and functional well-being).

RESULTS

Multivariate canonical correlations between pairs of canonical variates (stressors-outcomes, R_c  = 0.56; stressors-resources, R_c  = 0.42, resources-outcomes R_c  = 0.66) were significant (all ps < 0.0001), which confirmed the relationship between those components and supported proceeding to more granular levels of analysis. More refined analyses revealed that the most critical variables in relation to outcomes (i.e., emotional and functional well-being), were current problems and symptoms among the stressors and coping self-efficacy, social support and patient satisfaction among the resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an approach to the discernment of the most critical aspects of interventions that may improve supportive care and quality of life outcomes. Thus, efforts to address current problems (e.g., financial, home life, work), as well as effective management of symptoms (e.g., pain, fatigue, sleep), using the coordinated integration of medical care, support services and psycho-social interventions would provide the greatest impact on quality-of-life outcomes. Interventions that focus on problem solving and reinforce patient agency and activation may be most effective in sustaining quality of life outcomes into survivorship.

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects

BACKGROUND

Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs.

DISCUSSION

The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

Toxicity and quality of life in published clinical trials for advanced lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In every report on incurable disease, clear presentation of toxicity and of quality of life (QoL) is of essential importance. This postulate was assessed on a series of publications on systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis covered papers on original phase II-IV clinical trials published between 2013 and 2015 and included in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Selected for analysis were 349 publications on 333 trials with a total of 78.977 patients. Only 33 trials (10%) dealt with small cell lung cancer. Most trials (56.5%) included only information on frequency and grade of specific toxic phenomena and did not provide data on the frequency of any serious toxicity. The ratio between the frequency of any grade ≥ 3 toxicity and response rate was often unfavorable, especially for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (3.0) and second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer (5.3). Assessment of QoL was mentioned in 68 (20.4%) trials, of which only 46 publications provided adequate data.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of publications on trials for advanced lung cancer do not offer adequate information for decisions in clinical practice. Presentation of toxicity should include information on the frequency of any serious toxicity. Quality of life should be monitored and reported in every trial of an incurable disease. Simple instruments for the assessment of QoL are strongly recommended, so as to alleviate burden to patients and to staff, avoid bias due to poor compliance and enable clear analysis and presentation.