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.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.