FDA Approval Summary: Belzutifan for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

On December 14, 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved belzutifan (Welireg, Merck & Co., Inc.) for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following a programmed death receptor-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor and a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF-TKI). FDA granted traditional approval based on LITESPARK-005 (NCT04195750), an open-label, randomized, head-to-head trial of 746 patients with advanced RCC that progressed following both a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and a VEGF-TKI. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive belzutifan or everolimus. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). A statistically significant improvement in PFS was demonstrated for belzutifan compared with everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.90); 1-sided p-value=0.0008]. Kaplan-Meier curves reflected non-proportional hazards with similar median PFS estimates of 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.9, 7.0) in the belzutifan arm and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.8, 5.8) in the everolimus arm. While not reaching full maturity, OS results appeared to show a favorable trend in the belzutifan arm compared to everolimus [HR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.07)]. The confirmed objective response rate by BICR was 22% and 3.6% in belzutifan and everolimus arms, respectively. Observed toxicities differed between treatment arms, but drug discontinuations and interruptions due to treatment-emergent adverse events were lower on the belzutifan arm compared to the everolimus arm, and a descriptive analysis of patient-reported symptom and functional outcomes was suggestive of favorable tolerability for belzutifan compared to everolimus.

US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Capivasertib With Fulvestrant for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer With PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alterations.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant for adult patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced, or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have received at least one previous endocrine therapy and whose tumors harbor one or more phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PIK3CA)/AKT Serine/Threonine Kinase 1 (AKT1)/phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) alterations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on CAPItello-291, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of 708 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or MBC, including 289 patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive capivasertib 400 mg twice daily for 4 days per week with fulvestrant versus placebo with fulvestrant. Random assignment was stratified by presence of liver metastases, previous treatment with CDK4/6i, cyclin-dependent kinase four and six (CDK4/6) inhibitors, and geographical region. RESULTS: A statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was demonstrated in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.71]); this result was driven by 289 patients in the biomarker-positive population (HR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.68]). An exploratory analysis of investigator-assessed PFS in the 313 (44%) patients in the biomarker-negative population showed uncertain benefit (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01]). With capivasertib, more patients had Grade ≥3 toxicities. Key concerns included hyperglycemia (18% all-grade, 2.8% Grade ≥3), cutaneous toxicity (58% all-grade, 17% Grade ≥3), and diarrhea (72% all-grade, 9% Grade ≥3). CONCLUSION: Capivasertib with fulvestrant was approved for patients whose tumors harbored PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations. Benefit-risk assessment in this subgroup was favorable based on a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS in the context of an acceptable safety profile including no evidence of a potential detriment in overall survival. By contrast, the benefit-risk was unfavorable in the biomarker-negative population.

Facets of physical function assessed by patient-reported outcome measures in oncology research.

PURPOSE: The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has identified physical functioning (PF) as a core patient-reported outcome (PRO) in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to identify PF PRO measures (PROMs) in adult cancer populations and classify the PROMs by content covered (facets of PF) in each measure. METHODS: As part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) research program, we conducted a targeted literature review to identify PROMs that could be used in clinical trials to evaluate PF from the patient perspective. Next, we convened an advisory panel to conduct a modified, reactive, Delphi study to reach consensus on which PF facets are assessed by PROMs identified in the review. The panel engaged in a "card sort" activity to classify PROM items by PF facets. Consensus was reached when 80% of panel members agreed that at least one facet was being measured by each PROM item. RESULTS: The literature review identified 13 PROMs that met inclusion criteria. Eight facets of PF were identified for classification in the Delphi study: ability, completion, difficulty, limitation, quality, frequency, bother, and satisfaction. Through two rounds, the panel documented and classified conceptual approaches for each PRO item presented. The most prevalent PF facets were ability, difficulty, and limitation. CONCLUSION: Classifying PF PROMs by PF facets will promote more consistent communication regarding the aspects of PF represented in each PROM, helping researchers prioritize measures for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

What facets of physical function are most important to adults diagnosed with cancer?

PURPOSE: Successful patient-focused drug development involves selecting and measuring outcomes in clinical trials that are important to patients. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration's definition of clinical benefit includes how patients feel, function, or survive. Patients are considered the experts in describing how they feel and function. In cancer trials, patient-reported measures of physical function provide insight into how patients function at baseline, benefit from the interventions being studied, and the impact of treatment side effects. We conducted a qualitative study with adults diagnosed with cancer to describe facets of physical function from their perspective and to identify which facets are most important to this patient population. METHODS: Using concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing techniques, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 72 adults ≥ 22 years of age with cancer who received treatment with an anticancer drug or biologic within six months of the interview. We selected participants using purposive sampling with the aim to elicit diverse experiences regarding how they may interpret and respond to questions related to physical function. Participants were presented with patient-reported outcome (PRO) items representative of PRO measures used in cancer and general populations. RESULTS: Five facets of how physical function relates to activities were defined from the patient perspective: ability, difficulty, limitation, satisfaction, and completion. More than half of the participants indicated that ability was the most important facet of physical function. The next most important were satisfaction (18.3%), limitation (14.1%), difficulty (5.6%), and completion (2.8%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that we must be more specific about the facets of physical function that we set out to assess when we use PRO measures to describe the patient experience. These results have implications for the specificity of physical function facets when measured in cancer clinical trials.

Considering Functional Outcomes as Efficacy Endpoints in Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma Clinical Trials: An FDA Educational Symposium.

In October 2022, the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence hosted an educational symposium entitled, "Considering Functional Outcomes as Efficacy Endpoints in Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma (pLGG) Clinical Trials." The symposium brought together patient advocates, regulators from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and an international group of academic thought leaders in the field of pediatric neuro-oncology to discuss the potential role of functional outcomes, including visual acuity, motor function, and neurocognitive performance, as endpoints in clinical trials enrolling patients with pLGG. The panel discussed challenges and opportunities regarding the selection, implementation, and evaluation of clinical outcome assessments in these functional domains and outlined key considerations for their inclusion in future clinical trial design and role in new drug development.

LSTMCNN: A hybrid machine learning model to unmask fake news.

The widespread dissemination of false information across various online platforms has emerged as a matter of paramount concern due to the potential harm it poses to individuals, communities, and entire nations. Substantial efforts are currently underway in the research community to combat this issue. A burgeoning area of study gaining significant traction is the development of fake news identification techniques. However, this field faces formidable challenges primarily stemming from limited resources, including access to comprehensive datasets, computational resources, and evaluation tools. To overcome these challenges, researchers are exploring various methodologies. One promising approach involves the use of feature abstraction and vectorization techniques. In this context, we highly recommend utilizing the Python sci-kit-learn module, which offers many invaluable tools such as the Count Vectorizer and Tiff Vectorizer. These tools enable the efficient handling of text data by converting it into numerical representations, thereby facilitating subsequent analysis. Once the text data is appropriately transformed, the next crucial step involves feature selection. To achieve optimal results, researchers often employ feature selection methods based on misperception matrices. These methods allow for the exploration and selection of the most suitable features, which are essential for achieving the highest accuracy in fake news identification.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, patient-centred evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterise the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported outcome, patient-reported ported outcome (PRO), performance outcome tests and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multimodal physical function data collection in real-world patients with breast cancer or lymphoma will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform and PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University and the US Food and Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05214144; Pre-results.

Patient-reported frailty phenotype (PRFP) vs. International Myeloma Working Group frailty index (IMWG FI) proxy: A comparison between two approaches to measuring frailty.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty assessments may help to identify patients at highest risk for treatment-related toxicity, early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity, and death in Multiple Myeloma. We aimed to compare the patient-reported frailty phenotype (PRFP) and a modified version of the International Myeloma Working Group frailty index (IMWG FI) in terms of their strengths, limitations, and classification of frailty in a cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from six RRMM Phase 3 randomized clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for regulatory review between 2010 and 2021. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate fit/pre-frail, or frail using both PRFP and the IMWG FI proxy. Agreement between the two approaches in classification of patient frailty was assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa. A contingency table and Venn diagram were generated to analyze overlap in categorization of patient frailty across the different severity groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and compare the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients categorized as frail by PRFP vs. IMWG FI proxy. RESULTS: Of the 2,750 patients included in this analysis, IMWG FI proxy classified 16.4% (452) patients as frail, 28.1% (772) as intermediate fit/pre-frail, and 55.5% (1,526) as fit. Meanwhile, PRFP classified 21.7% (597) of patients as frail, 24.5% (675) as intermediate fit/pre-frail, and 53.8% (1478) as fit. Fair agreement was observed between PRFP and IMWG FI proxy (weighted Cohen's Kappa = 0.34 [0.31-0.37]). On average, patients who were categorized as frail by IMWG FI proxy were older and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores than patients classified as frail by PRFP. In contrast, patients who were classified as frail by PRFP had worse EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning subscale summary scores as compared to patients in the IMWG FI proxy frail group (median score of 40 vs. 47 out of 100). DISCUSSION: Our analysis found fair concordance between IMWG FI proxy and PRFP. This demonstrates that while both frailty models measure the same underlying construct, the variables that constitute each approach may result in differing frailty categorizations for the same patient. Further prospective studies are needed to establish and compare the predictive and prognostic abilities of the different frailty indices in MM.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib in Combination With Abiraterone for Treatment of Patients With BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of the data leading to approval of olaparib plus abiraterone for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), as determined by an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on the results from PROpel, a double-blind trial that randomly assigned 796 patients with mCRPC to abiraterone plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per investigator assessment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in rPFS for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone, with a median rPFS of 25 versus 17 months and a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81) in the intention-to-treat population. In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 85 patients with BRCAm mCRPC, the HR for rPFS was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.45) and the HR for overall survival (OS) was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.59). In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 711 patients without an identified BRCA mutation, the HR for rPFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96) and the HR for OS was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14). Adding olaparib to abiraterone resulted in increased toxicity, including anemia requiring transfusion in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with mCRPC, efficacy of the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone was primarily attributed to the treatment effect in the BRCAm subgroup, the indicated population for the approval. For patients without BRCAm, the FDA determined that the modest rPFS improvement, combined with clinically significant toxicities, did not demonstrate a favorable risk/benefit assessment.

Use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data to complement exposure-response analysis in early clinical cancer drug development.

BACKGROUND: This proof-of-concept retrospective case study investigated whether patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments, designed to capture symptomatic adverse event data, could identity a known exposure-response (ER) relationship for safety characterized in an original FDA analysis of an approved anti-cancer agent. PRO instruments have been designed to uniquely quantify the tolerability aspects of exposure-associated symptomatic adverse events. We explored whether standard ER analyses of clinician-reported safety data for symptomatic adverse events could be complemented by ER analysis using PRO data that capture and quantify the tolerability aspects of these same symptomatic adverse events. METHODS: Exposure-associated adverse event data for diarrhea were analyzed in parallel in 120 patients enrolled in a clinical trial using physician reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and patient-reported symptomatic adverse event data captured by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) instrument. Comparative ER analyses of diarrhea were conducted using the same dataset. Results from the CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE ER analyses were assessed for consistency with the ER relationship for diarrhea established in the original NDA using a 750-patient dataset. The analysis was limited to the 120-patient subset with parallel CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE assessments. RESULTS: Within the same 120-patient dataset, ER analysis using dense, longitudinal PRO-CTCAE-derived data was sensitive to identify the known ER relationship for diarrhea, whereas the standard CTCAE based ER analysis was not. CONCLUSIONS: ER analysis using PRO assessed symptomatic adverse event data may be a sensitive tool to complement traditional ER analysis. Improved identification of relationships for safety, by including quantification of the tolerability aspect of symptomatic adverse events using PRO instruments, may be useful to improve the sensitivity of exposure response analysis to support early clinical trial dosage optimization strategies, where decision making occurs within limited small patient datasets.

Comparative Study Between Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Morphine and Computerized Ambulatory Delivery Device Epidural Morphine for Post Operative Analgesia for Nuss Procedure in Pectus Excavatum: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pectus deformities are commonly seen in chest wall deformities among the pediatric age group. Pectus deformities occur due to defective growth of the sternum and its surrounding cartilage. The Nuss procedure is the technique of choice for correcting the deformity surgically which includes placing a convex bar under the sternum without resection or injury to costal cartilages. Adequate pain control is utmost to improve wound healing, patient satisfaction, short hospital stays, and decrease the financial burden on attendants. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate which analgesic method is more advantageous for the Nuss procedure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) morphine versus computerized ambulatory delivery device (CADD) epidural morphine on acute post-operative pain management in Nuss procedures. METHODS: A retrospective study was done at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer and Research Hospital, New Delhi from 2015 to 2020 to assess the efficacy and safety between IVPCA morphine and CADD epidural for post-operative analgesia following pectus excavatum repair. A total of 34 cases of Nuss procedures were taken with 17 cases in each group. Group 1 (intravenous PCA morphine) was given 39 ml normal saline + 6 ml morphine (total 45 ml, 2 mg/ml morphine), set at demand dose 0.5 ml, i.e. 1 mg, lockout interval 7 minutes, doses per hour was six and Group 2 (CADD epidural morphine) was given 42 ml normal saline + 3 ml morphine (1 mg/ml morphine) with continuous infusion at the rate of 0.5 ml/hr. Demand dose 0, lockout interval nil. Visual analog pain scores using a scale of 0-10 and Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) scores were obtained on arrival at the post-anesthesia care unit, at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours throughout the subsequent hospital stay. RESULTS: This study yielded positive information about our experience with the pectus post-operative pain management. The mean visual analog scale (VAS) score was lower in Group 1 compared to Group 2 but significantly different at 12 and 72 hours only. The mean RSS score was comparable between groups. The mean hospital stay (days) and requirement of rescue analgesia doses were 3.47±0.51 and 0.12±0.33 in Group 1 and 4.76±0.44, 0.59±1.12 in Group 2. CONCLUSION:  Both IVPCA morphine and CADD morphine were effective in controlling post-surgical pain in the Nuss procedure, but IVPCA morphine was better as compared to CADD morphine in this regard because it was noninvasive, safe, and cost-effective with non-significant complications.

Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

Measuring Frailty Using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Data: A Feasibility Study in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the feasibility of measuring frailty using patient responses to relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 items as proxy criteria for the Fried Frailty Phenotype, in a cohort of patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: Data were pooled from nine Phase III randomized clinical trials submitted to the FDA for regulatory review between 2010 and 2021, for the treatment of RRMM. Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 responses were used to derive a patient-reported frailty phenotype (PRFP), based on the Fried definition of frailty. PRFP was assessed for internal consistency reliability, structural validity, and known groups validity. RESULTS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of adapting patient responses to relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 items to serve as proxy Fried frailty criteria. Selected items were well correlated with one another and PRFP as a whole demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and structural validity. Known groups analysis demonstrated that PRFP could be used to detect distinct comorbidity levels and distinguish between different functional profiles, with frail patients reporting more difficulty in walking about, washing/dressing, and doing usual activities, as compared to their pre-frail and fit counterparts. Among the 4928 patients included in this study, PRFP classified 2729 (55.4%) patients as fit, 1209 (24.5%) as pre-frail, and 990 (20.1%) as frail. CONCLUSION: Constructing a frailty scale from existing PRO items commonly collected in cancer trials may be a patient-centric and practical approach to measuring frailty. Additional psychometric evaluation and research is warranted to further explore the utility of such an approach.

Integrating 4 Measures to Evaluate Physical Function in Patients with Cancer (In4M): Protocol for a prospective study.

Introduction: Accurate, patient-centered evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterize the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported physical function (ClinRo), patient-reported physical function (PRO), performance outcome tests (PerfO) and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. Methods and analysis: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English- and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive standard of care intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centered health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity, and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multi-modal physical function data collection in real-world patients with cancer will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform, and PROs. Ethics and dissemination: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community, and the public. Registration Details: The trial registration number for this study is NCT05214144. Strengths & Limitations: This study addresses an important unmet need by characterizing the performance characteristics of multiple patient-centered physical function measures in patients with cancerPhysical function is an important and undermeasured clinical outcome. Scientifically rigorous capture and measurement of physical function constitutes a key component of cancer treatment tolerability assessment both from a regulatory and clinical perspective.This study will include patients with lymphoma or breast cancer receiving a broad range of cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. While recruitment will occur at two academic sites, patients who ultimately receive treatment at local community sites will be included.A patient-centered health data aggregating platform facilitates the delivery of patient-reported outcome measures and collection of wearable data to researchers, while reducing patient burden compared to traditional patient-generated data collection and aggregation methodsHeterogeneity in patient willingness or comfort engaging with mobile products including smartphones and wearables, enrollment primarily at large academic centers, and the modest sample size are potential limitations to the external validity of the study.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Advancing Clinical Trial Design for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent drug development for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), few therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and there remains an unmet clinical need. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) supply issues underscore the importance of developing safe and effective drugs for NMIBC. OBJECTIVE: On November 18-19, 2021, the FDA held a public virtual workshop to discuss NMIBC research needs and potential trial designs for future development of effective therapies. METHODS: Representatives from various disciplines including urologists, oncologists, pathologists, statisticians, basic and translational scientists, and the patient advocacy community participated. The workshop format included invited lectures, panel discussions, and opportunity for audience discussion and comment. RESULTS: In a pre-workshop survey, 92% of urologists surveyed considered the development of alternatives to BCG as a high drug development priority for BCG-naïve high-risk patients. Key topics discussed included definitions of disease states; trial design for BCG-naïve NMIBC, BCG-unresponsive carcinoma in situ, and BCG-unresponsive papillary carcinoma; strengths and limitations of single-arm trial designs; assessing patient-reported outcomes; and considerations for assessing avoidance of cystectomy as an efficacy measure. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop discussed several important opportunities for trial design refinement in NMIBC. FDA encourages sponsors to meet with the appropriate review division to discuss trial design proposals for NMIBC early in drug development.

Timing is everything: The importance of patient-reported outcome assessment frequency when characterizing symptomatic adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: Although patient-reported symptoms and side effects are increasingly measured in cancer clinical trials, an appropriate assessment frequency has not yet been established. To determine whether differences in assessment frequency affect the apparent incidence and severity of patient-reported symptoms using two well-established patient-reported outcome measures used within the same clinical trial. METHODS: We examined patient-reported outcome results from AURA3 (NCT02151981), a randomized open-label study comparing Tagrisso (osimertinib) with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated estimated glomerular filtration rate/T790M mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients in each arm that reported worsening of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, and appetite loss from baseline measured using the patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event (weekly) or European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (every 6 weeks). RESULTS: Similar trends were observed for all six symptoms investigated. Using nausea in the chemotherapy arm as an example, 76% of patients reported any worsening from baseline based on weekly patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event assessments. When using an every 6-week assessment of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 nausea and restricting analysis to an every 6-week assessment for patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event nausea, the proportion of chemotherapy arm patients reporting any worsening of nausea was 40% for both measures. Across the six patient-reported symptomatic adverse events, we observed differential proportions when comparing frequent versus sparse assessment. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that more frequent assessment of patient-reported symptomatic adverse events will lead to improved detection, and therefore a more complete understanding of the tolerability of experimental anti-cancer therapies.