15 Years of Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to GU Cancer Drug Approvals: a Systematic Review on the Quality of Data Reporting and Analysis

Overview

Journal EClinicalMedicine

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jan 26

PMID 38273886

Authors

Mahati Paravathaneni

Houssein Safa

Vidhu Joshi

Monica K Tamil

Jacob J Adashek

Filip Ionescu

Savan Shah

Juskaran S Chadha

Scott Gilbert

Brandon Manley

Adele Semaan

Heather S L Jim

Denise Kalos

Youngchul Kim

Philippe E Spiess

Jad Chahoud

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies.

Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL).

Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations.

Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care.

Funding: None.

Citing Articles

Understanding molecular mechanism of diabetic wound healing: addressing recent advancements in therapeutic managements.

Porel P, Kaur M, Sharma V, Aran K J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2025; 24(1):76.

PMID: 40060271 PMC: 11883079. DOI: 10.1007/s40200-025-01588-7.

Osanto S, Vliert-Bout A, Gomez de Segura C, Efficace F, Sparano F, Willemse P EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 78:102914.

PMID: 39619239 PMC: 11605133. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102914.

[Patient-reported outcomes-the role of the patient's subjective perspective for research and clinical care].

Dinkel A, Jahnen M Urologie. 2024; 63(9):886-892.

PMID: 39110186 PMC: 11343820. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-024-02405-4.

The quality of life assessment of breast cancer patients.

Hasanah U, Ahmad M, Prihantono P, Usman A, Arsyad A, Agustin D Breast Dis. 2024; 43(1):173-185.

PMID: 38875026 PMC: 11191531. DOI: 10.3233/BD-249008.

Physical activity and quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

Agussalim N, Ahmad M, Prihantono P, Usman A, Rafiah S, Agustin D Breast Dis. 2024; 43(1):161-171.

PMID: 38875025 PMC: 11191433. DOI: 10.3233/BD-249005.

References

Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, King M, Hunn A . Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA. 2018; 319(5):483-494. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.21903. View

Brundage M, Bass B, Davidson J, Queenan J, Bezjak A, Ringash J . Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Qual Life Res. 2010; 20(5):653-64. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9793-3. View

Kyte D, Retzer A, Ahmed K, Keeley T, Armes J, Brown J . Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019; 111(11):1170-1178. PMC: 6855977. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz038. View

Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu A . How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):156-65. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. View

Chadha J, Adashek J, Jim H, Kim Y, Semaan A, Chakiryan N . Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Protocol Content and Reporting for Clinical Trials that Lead to the approval of frontline Immune Checkpoint Blockade Combination for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma - The Patients' Voice or.... Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022; 20(2):e158-e165. PMC: 10285347. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.12.002. View

Powles T, Albiges L, Staehler M, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Giles R . Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines: Recommendations for the Treatment of First-line Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017; 73(3):311-315. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.016. View

Fiteni F, Anota A, Westeel V, Bonnetain F . Methodology of health-related quality of life analysis in phase III advanced non-small-cell lung cancer clinical trials: a critical review. BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:122. PMC: 4758022. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2152-1. View

Escudier B, Motzer R, Sharma P, Wagstaff J, Plimack E, Hammers H . Treatment Beyond Progression in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in CheckMate 025. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(3):368-376. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.037. View

Pe M, Dorme L, Coens C, Basch E, Calvert M, Campbell A . Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19(9):e459-e469. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30418-2. View

10.

Mercieca-Bebber R, Calvert M, Kyte D, Stockler M, King M . The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018; 9:23-32. PMC: 5898562. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.11.009. View

11.

Bottomley A, Pe M, Sloan J, Basch E, Bonnetain F, Calvert M . Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(11):e510-e514. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30510-1. View

12.

Coens C, Pe M, Dueck A, Sloan J, Basch E, Calvert M . International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21(2):e83-e96. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30790-9. View

13.

Alkhouli M, Bazargan S, Pilon-Thomas S, Poch M, Chahoud J . Current State of Cell Therapies for Genitourinary Malignancies. Cancer J. 2022; 28(4):294-300. DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000604. View

14.

Siegel R, Miller K, Fuchs H, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022; 72(1):7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. View

15.

Mercieca-Bebber R, Perreca A, King M, Macann A, Whale K, Soldati S . Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 56:144-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.12.025. View

16.

Mierzynska J, Piccinin C, Pe M, Martinelli F, Gotay C, Coens C . Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(12):e685-e698. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30656-4. View

17.

Bylicki O, Gan H, Joly F, Maillet D, You B, Peron J . Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2014; 26(1):231-237. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu489. View

18.

Basch E, Geoghegan C, Coons S, Gnanasakthy A, Slagle A, Papadopoulos E . Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Drug Development and US Regulatory Review: Perspectives From Industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Patient. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1(3):375-9. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0530. View

19.

Efficace F, Feuerstein M, Fayers P, Cafaro V, Eastham J, Pusic A . Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. Eur Urol. 2013; 66(3):416-27. PMC: 4150854. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.017. View

20.

Van Hemelrijck M, Sparano F, Josephs D, Sprangers M, Cottone F, Efficace F . Patient-reported outcomes in randomised clinical trials of bladder cancer: an updated systematic review. BMC Urol. 2019; 19(1):86. PMC: 6744649. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-019-0518-9. View