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.

Most common symptomatic adverse reactions of cancer treatments from US drug labels (2015-2021) to inform selection of patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials (CTs) is important to characterize treatment tolerability. Cancer therapies approved over the past decade have expanded the types of expected toxicities. To inform future symptomatic AE PRO item selection, we identified the most common symptomatic adverse reactions from recently approved products. METHODS: We reviewed approvals from 2015-2021 for lung, breast, and hematologic cancer indications. Using United States Prescribing Information safety data, we recorded symptomatic adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of patients in the experimental arm of CTs supporting approvals. We calculated the proportion of arms reporting each symptomatic adverse reaction. RESULTS: In total, 130 experimental arms were included (lung=30, breast=10, hematologic=90). For all cancer types, fatigue and diarrhea were reported in >50% of the arms. Nausea was reported in ≥50% of the arms for all except lung. Vomiting, decreased appetite, and alopecia, were reported in ≥50% of breast cancer arms. Rash, musculoskeletal pain, and cough were reported in >50% of leukemia/lymphoma arms. Cough was common (50%) in multiple myeloma arms. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in symptomatic adverse reactions across CTs supports the use of item libraries when building a PRO strategy to assess tolerability. Fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea were the most frequent symptomatic adverse reactions reported in contemporary cancer CTs and could provide a starting point when selecting PRO symptomatic AE items. Additional symptomatic AE PRO items should be selected based on the mechanism of action, early clinical data, published literature, and patient and clinician input.

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.

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.

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.

Time to deterioration of symptoms or function using patient-reported outcomes in cancer trials.

Time-to-event endpoints for patient-reported outcomes, such as time to deterioration of symptoms or function, are frequently used in cancer clinical trials. Although time-to-deterioration endpoints might seem familiar to cancer researchers for being similar to survival or disease-progression endpoints, there are unique considerations associated with their use. The complexity of time-to-deterioration endpoints should be weighed against the information that they add to the tumour, survival, and safety data used to inform the risks and benefits of an investigational drug. Here we use the estimand framework to show how analytical decisions answer different clinical questions of interest, some of which might be uninformative. Challenges including the consideration of intercurrent events, the difficulty in maintaining adequate completion rates, and considerable patient and trial burden from long-term, serial, patient-reported outcome measurements render time to deterioration a problematic approach for widespread use. For trials in which a comparative benefit in symptoms or function is an objective, an analysis at pre-specified relevant timepoints could be a better approach.

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. METHODS: The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. RESULTS: The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported "not at all" for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. CONCLUSIONS: Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. Investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

US Food and Drug Administration Analysis of Patient-Reported Diarrhea and Its Impact on Function and Quality of Life in Patients Receiving Treatment for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Many trials conclude "no clinically meaningful detriment" to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function between arms, even when notable differential toxicity is observed. Mean change from baseline analyses of function or HRQL can possibly obscure important change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. We evaluate the impact of diarrhea, a key treatment arm toxicity, on patient-reported HRQL and functioning in clinical trials submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: This study used 4 randomized, breast cancer trials (adjuvant to late-line metastatic) as case examples. Diarrhea, physical functioning (PF), and global health status and quality of life (GHS/QoL) from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 were analyzed at baseline and approximately 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Generally, patients reporting very much diarrhea at months 3 and 6 had worse PF (9-19 points lower) and GHS/QoL (16-19 points lower) than patients reporting no diarrhea regardless of treatment arm. In the change from baseline analysis, patients reporting very much diarrhea also experienced a greater decrease in PF (6-13 points) and GHS/QoL (6-16 points) versus patients reporting no diarrhea in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In trials with moderate to large differences in symptomatic toxicity by arm, reporting "no meaningful difference in functioning and HRQL between arms" based on mean change from baseline analysis is insufficient and may obscure important impacts on subgroups experiencing symptomatic adverse events. Additional exploratory analyses with simple data visualizations evaluating functioning or HRQL in patient subgroups experiencing expected symptomatic toxicities can further inform the safety and tolerability of an investigational agent.

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.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 µg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient. FUNDING: None.

Does Knowledge of Treatment Assignment Affect Patient Report of Symptoms, Function, and Health Status? An Evaluation Using Multiple Myeloma Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Unblinded trials are common in oncology, but patient knowledge of treatment assignment may bias response to questionnaires. We sought to ascertain the extent of possible bias arising from patient knowledge of treatment assignment. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from 2 randomized trials in multiple myeloma, 1 double-blind and 1 open label. We compared changes in patient reports of symptoms, function, and health status from prerandomization (screening) to baseline (pretreatment but postrandomization) across control and investigational arms in the 2 trials. Changes from prerandomization scores at ~2 and 6 months on treatment were evaluated only across control arms to avoid comparisons between 2 different experimental drugs. All scores were on 0- to 100-point scales. Inverse probability weighting, entropy balancing, and multiple imputation using propensity score splines were used to compare score changes across similar groups of patients. RESULTS: Minimal changes from screening were seen at baseline in all arms. In the control arm, mean changes of <7 points were seen for all domains at 2 and 6 months. The effect of unblinding at 6 months in social function was a decline of less than 6 points (weighting: -3.09; 95% confidence interval -8.41 to 2.23; balancing: -4.55; 95% confidence interval -9.86 to 0.76; imputation: -5.34; 95% confidence interval -10.64 to -0.04). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, we did not find evidence to suggest that there was a meaningful differential effect on how patients reported their symptoms, function or health status after knowing their treatment assignment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Treatment Discontinuation: Commercial Clinical Trial Data From Four Cancer Types.

OBJECTIVES: How frequently patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are collected in commercial cancer clinical trials after treatment discontinuation and the quality of that data are poorly understood. We reviewed treatment discontinuation follow-up PRO data collection to learn about trials collecting these data and understand data quality. The review included 4 cancer types representing potential for long- (prostate cancer), medium-/long- (breast cancer), and short-term (pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma) follow-up owing to disease trajectory. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in US Food and Drug Administration databases between January 2010 and January 2019. Protocols were reviewed to determine whether PROs were collected and, if so, whether these included the follow-up phase. Clinical study reports were reviewed when follow-up PROs were collected to determine completion rates. Results were summarized using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Of the 46 trials containing PRO data, 46% had at least 1 follow-up PRO assessment. Follow-up schedules of assessment were wide ranging; the first assessment occurred between 30 days and 6 months after stopping treatment with follow-up for as long as 3 years. PRO completion rates were reported in 57% of 21 trials; at the first follow-up assessment, completion rates for the treatment arm ranged from 38% to 91% and from 41% to 100% in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the follow-up PRO data, based on completion rates, was variable, as was the duration of follow-up. A clear research objective should be developed for follow-up PRO data, accounting for patient burden. If PRO data are collected, monitoring should be implemented to improve completion because poor completion limits data use in the benefit-risk assessment.

FDA review summary of patient-reported outcome results for ibrutinib in the treatment of chronic graft versus host disease.

PURPOSE: On August 2, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration approved ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA) for the treatment of patients with chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy. The approval was based on results from a single-arm, multicenter trial that enrolled patients with refractory cGVHD. This paper describes the FDA review of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from Study PCYC-1129-CA and the decision to incorporate descriptive PRO data in the FDA label to support the primary clinician-reported outcome results. METHODS: In this trial, the Lee Chronic GVHD Symptom Scale (LSS) was used to capture patient-reported symptom bother. The 42 patients who received treatment were included in the analysis and completed the PRO tool. Post hoc descriptive analyses were conducted to further understand the measurement properties of the LSS. RESULTS: The analysis submitted to FDA reported that 18 patients had a ≥ 7-point improvement on the LSS overall summary score at any point during the assessment period. For 10 patients, the ≥ 7-point improvement was sustained for ≥ 2 consecutive PRO assessments. An assessment of the responder threshold suggested the threshold submitted to the FDA was reasonable and in line with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, study PCYC-1129-CA demonstrated favorable clinician-reported cGVHD efficacy results that were complemented by results from PRO data, supporting the FDA's positive benefit-risk assessment leading to regular approval. Limitations included the single-arm trial design, responder definition, and instrument shortcomings. These limitations were thoroughly explored through additional FDA post hoc analyses.

Analyzing patient-reported outcome data when completion differs between arms in open-label trials: an application of principal stratification.

PURPOSE: Cancer trials are often open-label and include patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Previous work has demonstrated that patients may complete PRO assessments less frequently in the control arm compared with the experimental arm in open-label trials. Such differential completion may affect PRO results. This paper sought to explore principal stratification methodology to address potential bias caused by the posttreatment intermediate variable of questionnaire completion. METHODS: We evaluated six randomized trials (five open-label and one double-blind) of anticancer therapies with varying levels of PRO completion submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We applied complete case analysis (CCA), multiple imputation (MI), and principal stratification to evaluate PRO results for quality of life (QOL) and the domains of physical, role, and emotional function (PF, RF, and EF). Assignment to potential principal strata was by the expectation maximization algorithm using patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Completion rates in the experimental arm ranged from 66% to 94% and 51% to 95% in the control arm. Four trials had negligible completion differences between arms (1%-2%), and two had large differences favoring the experimental arm (15%-17%). For trials with negligible completion differences, principal stratification results were similar to CCA and MI results for all domains. Notable differences in point estimates may be observed in trials with large differences in completion rates. However, in the examined trials, the confidence intervals for the principal stratification estimates overlapped with the ones obtained using CCA. CONCLUSIONS: The principal stratification estimand may be a useful additional analysis, especially if PRO completion differs between arms.

FDA Approval Summary: Daratumumab for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma After One Prior Therapy.

On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval to daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on two randomized, open-label trials in which daratumumab was added to these backbone therapies. The MMY3003 trial demonstrated substantial improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when daratumumab was added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. The estimated median PFS had not been reached in the daratumumab arm and was 18.4 months in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.52; p < .0001), representing a 63% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. Similar results were observed in the MMY3004 trial comparing the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone. The estimated median PFS was not reached in the daratumumab arm and was 7.2 months in the control arm (HR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; p < .0001), representing a 61% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (greater than or equal to 20%) in MMY3003 were infusion reactions, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, muscle spasm, cough, and dyspnea. The most frequently reported adverse reactions (greater than or equal to 20%) in MMY3004 were infusion reactions, diarrhea, peripheral edema, upper respiratory tract infection, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia have been added to the Warnings and Precautions of the drug label. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Daratumumab, the first monoclonal antibody targeted against CD38, received U.S. Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval in 2015 based on data from single-agent, single-arm trials that provided response rate information. Results of the MMY3003 and MMY3004 trials established that daratumumab can be combined synergistically with some of the most highly active agents used to treat multiple myeloma, leading to daratumumab's regular approval in 2016. Daratumumab added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, provides a substantial improvement in progression-free survival in previously treated patients with multiple myeloma. These combinations will likely improve the survival outlook for patients with multiple myeloma.

Disparities in black and white patients with multiple myeloma referred for autologous hematopoietic transplantation: a single center study.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparity in the incidence of multiple myeloma is well established; however, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the impact of racial differences on disease characteristics, response to therapy, and clinical outcome. METHODS: The authors studied 453 patients (174 of whom were black and 279 of whom were white) who underwent transplant between 2000 and 2013. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. RESULTS: Black patients were significantly younger than white patients (median age, 54 years vs 59 years; P<.0001), more frequently presented with anemia (P = .04), had more of the immunoglobulin G isotype (P<.001), and had a borderline favorable cytogenetic risk (P = .06). Overall response to induction was similar, but deeper responses were observed in more white patients compared with black patients receiving immunomodulatory drug-based induction (P = .02). Referral for transplant was significantly delayed in black individuals (median, 1.3 years vs 0.9 years; P = .003). Overall survival from the time of transplant was similar for black and white patients, with medians of 6.2 years and 5.7 years, respectively, but survival from the time of diagnosis was significantly longer among black individuals (median, 7.7 years vs 6.1 years; P = .03). Maintenance therapy was found to positively impact progression-free survival but not overall survival, irrespective of race. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study confirm ethnic differences in age, referral patterns, response to therapy, and overall survival. Future validation of these disparities is urgently needed.