The FACT-GP5 as a global tolerability measure: responsiveness and robustness to missing assessments.

PURPOSE: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy item (FACT-GP5) has the potential to provide an understanding of global treatment tolerability from the patient perspective. Longitudinal evaluations of the FACT-GP5 and challenges posed by data missing-not-at-random (MNAR) have not been explored. Robustness of the FACT-GP5 to missing data assumptions and the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 to key side-effects are evaluated. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study (NCT00065325), postmenopausal women (n = 618) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), advanced breast cancer received either fulvestrant or exemestane and completed FACT measures monthly for seven months. Cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) were fit to evaluate: (1) the trajectory of the FACT-GP5 and (2) the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 to CTCAE grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status scale, and key side-effects from the FACT. Sensitivity analyses of the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption were conducted. RESULTS: Odds of reporting worse side-effect bother increased over time. There were positive within-person relationships between level of side-effect bother (FACT-GP5) and severity of other FACT items, as well as ECOG performance status and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade. The number of missing FACT-GP5 assessments impacted the trajectory of the FACT-GP5 but did not impact the relationships between the FACT-GP5 and other items (except for nausea [FACT-GP2]). CONCLUSIONS: Results support the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5. Generally speaking, the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 is robust to missing assessments. Missingness should be considered, however, when evaluating change over time of the FACT-GP5. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00065325. TRIAL REGISTRATION YEAR: 2003.

Researchers have been exploring the use of a single question, FACT-GP5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment"), as a quick way to learn about drug tolerability from the patients' perspective. This study explores if this single question can capture changes in tolerability during treatment, and if the assessment is missed by patients, whether that impacts the interpretation of tolerability. In our study, we found that the FACT-GP5 can be used to understand how tolerability changes during treatment. Missing assessments of the FACT-GP5 are important to account for when interpreting results. The FACT-GP5 may be a useful question for capturing the patient experience of drug tolerability.

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

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.

Best Practice Recommendations for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Dataset Structure and Standardization to Support Drug Development.

The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Dataset Structure and Standardization Project is a multistakeholder initiative formed by Critical Path Institute's PRO Consortium and Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) Consortium to address issues related to ePRO dataset structure and standardization and to provide best practice recommendations for clinical trial sponsors and eCOA providers. Given the many benefits of utilizing electronic modes to capture PRO data, clinical trials are increasingly using these methods, yet there are challenges to using data generated by eCOA systems. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards are used in clinical trials to ensure consistency in data collection, tabulation, and analysis and to facilitate regulatory submission. Currently, ePRO data are not required to follow a standard model, and the data models used often vary by eCOA provider and sponsor. This lack of consistency creates risks for programming and analysis and difficulties for analytics functions generating the required analysis and submission datasets. There is a disconnect between data standards used for study data submission and those used for data collection via case report forms and ePRO forms, which would be mitigated through the application of CDISC standards for ePRO data capture and transfer. The project was formed to collate and examine the issues arising from the lack of adoption of standardized approaches and this paper details recommendations to address those issues. Recommendations to address issues with ePRO dataset structure and standardization include adopting CDISC standards in the ePRO data platform, timely involvement of key stakeholders, ensuring ePRO controls are implemented, addressing issues of missing data early in development, ensuring quality control and validation of ePRO datasets, and use of read-only datasets.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

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.

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.

Demystifying the estimand framework: a case study using patient-reported outcomes in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe how a patient feels or functions and are increasingly being used in benefit-risk assessments in the development of cancer drugs. However, PRO research objectives are often ill-defined in clinical cancer trials, which can lead to misleading conclusions about patient experiences. The estimand framework is a structured approach to aligning a clinical trial objective with the study design, including endpoints and analysis. The estimand framework uses a multidisciplinary approach and can improve design, analysis, and interpretation of PRO results. On the basis of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9(R1) addendum, we provide an overview of the estimand framework intended for a multistakeholder audience. We apply the estimand framework to a hypothetical trial for breast cancer, using physical function to develop specific PRO research objectives. This Policy Review is not an endorsement of a specific study design or outcome; rather, it is meant to show the application of principles of the estimand framework to research study design and add to ongoing discussion. Use of the estimand framework to review medical products and label PROs in oncology can improve communication between stakeholders and ultimately provide a clearer interpretation of patient experience in the development of oncological drugs.

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.

Exploration of baseline patient-reported side effect bother from cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient reports of expected treatment side effects are increasingly collected as part of the assessment of patient experience in clinical trials. A global side effect item that is patient-reported has the potential to inform overall tolerability. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the completion and distribution of such a global single-item measure of side effect burden in five cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Data from five trials from internal Food and Drug Administration databases that included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General single-item measure of overall side effect burden (i.e. impact on degree of bother) were analyzed. Completion rates for the side effect bother item, items adjacent to this item, and two non-adjacent items on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General that are related to health-related quality of life were calculated at the baseline assessment and at the 3-month assessment. To evaluate the distribution, the percentage of patients reporting high levels (quite a bit or very much bother) of side effect bother at baseline and 3 months was assessed. RESULTS: Completion rates for all items were at least 80% regardless of time point or trial population. However, in three of the five trials, completion rates for the side effect bother item were lower at baseline compared to adjacent and non-adjacent items. This difference was not observed at 3 months. Up to 9.4% of patients reported high levels of side effect bother at baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients may enter trials already reporting some bother from side effects. This can make interpretation of results with respect to the investigational agent under study challenging. Patients may skip an item evaluating side effect bother at baseline, suggesting some difficulty with interpretation of what is being asked. Further study of the wording and utility of a baseline side effect bother assessment is warranted.

US Food and Drug Administration review of statistical analysis of patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer clinical trials approved between January, 2008, and December, 2017.

With the advent of patient-focused drug development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials submitted as part of a drug's marketing application. This Review aims to characterise the statistical analysis of PRO data from pivotal lung cancer trials submitted to support FDA drug approval between January, 2008, and December, 2017. For each trial and PRO instrument identified, we evaluated prespecified PRO concepts, statistical analysis, missing data and sensitivity analysis, instrument completion, and clinical relevance. Of the 37 pivotal lung cancer trials used to support FDA drug approval, 25 (68%) trials included PRO measures. The most common prespecified PRO concepts were cough, dyspnoea, and chest pain. At the trial level, the most common statistical analyses were descriptive (24 trials [96%]), followed by time-to-event analyses (19 trials [76%]), longitudinal analyses (12 trials [48%]), and basic inferential tests or general linear models (10 trials [40%]). Our findings indicate a wide variation in the analytic techniques and data presentation methods used, with very few trials reporting clear PRO research objectives and sensitivity analyses for PRO results. Our work further supports the need for focused research objectives to justify and to guide the analytic strategy of PROs to facilitate the interpretation of patient experience.

Patient-reported treatment-related symptom burden for patients with advanced melanoma in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the impact of emerging treatments for advanced melanoma (stages III and IV) on patients' functioning and well-being. The objective of this study was to describe the patient-reported treatment-related symptom (TRS) burden in advanced melanoma. METHOD: Twenty-nine in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted among adult patients with advanced melanoma in Canada using a semi-structured interview method. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and key concepts were identified using a grounded theory analytic approach. RESULTS: The 29 patients reported 13 unique treatment journeys involving the following drug therapy categories: cytotoxic chemotherapies, CTLA-4 inhibitors, BRAF or MEK inhibitors, and PD-1 inhibitors. Patients typically underwent multiple treatment episodes over time. Common TRSs included nausea, fatigue, diarrhea or constipation, and skin rashes. Patients described these as impacting their physical functioning, ability to perform activities of daily living, social functioning, and overall quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a description of the patient's experience with treatment for advanced melanoma. Our sample included patients typically diagnosed in mid-life, facing an urgent sequence of medical procedures and a pharmacological treatment journey that was burdensome. There is a need for less toxic and more efficacious treatments earlier in the patient journey to alleviate the impact of advanced melanoma treatment on patients' health-related quality of life.

Patient reported outcomes in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to capture the patient's experience with disease and treatment. Immunotherapy agents including the anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies have unique symptomatic side effects and patient-reported outcome data can help to characterize the benefits and burdens associated with therapy. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in the Food and Drug Administration database for five anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies to characterize trial design and patient-reported outcome assessment strategy (cutoff 31 December 2017). We evaluated the patient-reported outcome measurement coverage of eight key symptoms related to adverse events reported in immunotherapy agent product labels (fatigue, diarrhea, cough, shortness of breath, musculoskeletal pain, rash, pruritus, and fever). RESULTS: There were a total of 28 trials across seven disease types and one tumor agnostic indication reviewed, of which 17 were randomized and 25 were open label. Of the 28 trials, 21 contained patient-reported outcome measures and all 21 used >1 instrument. The most common instruments were the EuroQol five dimension (N = 19), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (N = 17). Disease-specific patient-reported outcome tools were included in nine trials (six lung, one head and neck, one melanoma and one renal cell). No trial used a patient-reported outcome strategy assessing all eight selected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Collection of patient-reported outcome data in anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor trials were variable and did not consistently assess important symptomatic adverse events. Use of a patient-reported outcome instrument with well-defined functional scales supplemented by item libraries to incorporate relevant symptomatic adverse events may allow for improved understanding of the patient experience while receiving therapy. These data, along with other clinical data such as hospitalizations and supportive care medication use can help inform the benefit-risk assessment for regulatory purposes.

Humanistic burden of disease for patients with advanced melanoma in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer, often striking in the prime of life. This study provides new information directly from advanced melanoma (stage III and IV) patients on how their disease impacts their health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS: Twenty-nine in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with adult patients with advanced melanoma in Canada. A semi-structured interview guide was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and key concepts were identified using a grounded theory analytic approach. RESULTS: Many patients' journeys began with the startling diagnosis of an invasive disease and a vastly shortened life expectancy. By the time they reached an advanced stage of melanoma, these patients' overall functioning and quality of life had been greatly diminished by this quickly progressing cancer. The impact was described in terms of physical pain and disability, emotional distress, diminished interactions with friends and family, and burden on caregivers. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence of signs, symptoms, and functional impacts of advanced melanoma. Signs and symptoms reported (physical, mental, and social) confirm and expand on those reported in the existing clinical literature. Primary care physicians should be better trained to identify melanomas early. Oncology care teams can improve on their current approaches for helping patients navigate treatment options, with information about ancillary services to mitigate disease impacts on HRQL, such as mental health and social supports, as well as employment or financial support services.