Patient-Reported Outcomes for Tolerability Assessment in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials

Advancing patient-centric care: integrating patient reported outcomes for tolerability assessment in early phase clinical trials - insights from an expert virtual roundtable

Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies' risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.

The ESMO Tumour-Agnostic Classifier and Screener (ETAC-S): a tool for assessing tumour-agnostic potential of molecularly guided therapies and for steering drug development

BACKGROUND

Advances in precision oncology led to approval of tumour-agnostic molecularly guided treatment options (MGTOs). The minimum requirements for claiming tumour-agnostic potential remain elusive.

METHODS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (PMWG) coordinated a project to optimise tumour-agnostic drug development. International experts examined and summarised the publicly available data used for regulatory assessment of the tumour-agnostic indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency as of December 2023. Different scenarios of minimum objective response rate (ORR), number of tumour types investigated, and number of evaluable patients per tumour type were assessed for developing a screening tool for tumour-agnostic potential. This tool was tested using the tumour-agnostic indications approved during the first half of 2024. A taxonomy for MGTOs and a framework for tumour-agnostic drug development were conceptualised.

RESULTS

Each tumour-agnostic indication had data establishing objective response in at least one out of five patients (ORR ≥ 20%) in two-thirds (≥4) of the investigated tumour types, with at least five evaluable patients in each tumour type. These minimum requirements were met by tested indications and may serve as a screening tool for tumour-agnostic potential, requiring further validation. We propose a conceptual taxonomy classifying MGTOs based on the therapeutic effect obtained by targeting a driver molecular aberration across tumours and its modulation by tumour-specific biology: tumour-agnostic, tumour-modulated, or tumour-restricted. The presence of biology-informed mechanistic rationale, early regulatory advice, and adequate trial design demonstrating signs of biology-driven tumour-agnostic activity, followed by confirmatory evidence, should be the principles for tumour-agnostic drug development.

CONCLUSION

The ESMO Tumour-Agnostic Classifier (ETAC) focuses on the interplay of targeted driver molecular aberration and tumour-specific biology modulating the therapeutic effect of MGTOs. We propose minimum requirements to screen for tumour-agnostic potential (ETAC-S) as part of tumour-agnostic drug development. Definition of ETAC cut-offs is warranted.

Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials.

METHODS

We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care.

RESULTS

We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations.

CONCLUSION

Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.

An online evidence-based dictionary of common adverse events of antidepressants: a new tool to empower patients and clinicians in their shared decision-making process

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings.

METHODS

Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available ( https://thesymptomglossary.com ). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way.

Patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of innovative patient-centric early phase dose-finding trial designs

BACKGROUND

In light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials.

METHODS

A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development.

RESULTS

Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review

Background

Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).

Methods

DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.

Findings

Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.

Interpretation

This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.

Funding

EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Industry-Sponsored Phase I Oncology Studies: Considerations for Translating Theory Into Practice

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues.

Construct validity and responsiveness of a health-related symptom index for persons either treated or monitored for anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL): AMC-A01/-A03

PURPOSE

To determine whether treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), vs active monitoring, is effective in reducing incidence of anal cancer in persons living with HIV, the US National Cancer Institute funded the Phase III ANal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) clinical trial. As no established patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tool exists for persons with anal HSIL, we sought to estimate the construct validity and responsiveness of the ANCHOR Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI).

METHODS

The construct validity phase enrolled ANCHOR participants who were within two weeks of randomization to complete A-HRSI and legacy PRO questionnaires at a single time point. The responsiveness phase enrolled a separate cohort of ANCHOR participants who were not yet randomized to complete A-HRSI at three time points: prior to randomization (T1), 14-70 (T2), and 71-112 (T3) days following randomization.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis techniques established a three-factor model (i.e., physical symptoms, impact on physical functioning, impact on psychological functioning), with moderate evidence of convergent validity and strong evidence of discriminant validity in the construct validity phase (n = 303). We observed a significant moderate effect for changes in A-HRSI impact on physical functioning (standardized response mean = 0.52) and psychological symptoms (standardized response mean = 0.60) from T2 (n = 86) to T3 (n = 92), providing evidence of responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

A-HRSI is a brief PRO index that captures health-related symptoms and impacts related to anal HSIL. This instrument may have broad applicability in other contexts assessing individuals with anal HSIL, which may ultimately help improve clinical care and assist providers and patients with medical decision-making.

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in dose-finding clinical trials with continuous patient enrollment

Dose-finding clinical trials in oncology estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), based on toxicity obtained from the clinician's perspective. While the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been advocated to better inform treatment tolerability, there is a lack of guidance and methods on how to use PROs for dose assignments and recommendations. The PRO continual reassessment method (PRO-CRM) has been proposed to formally incorporate PROs into dose-finding trials. In this paper, we propose two extensions of the PRO-CRM, which allow continuous enrollment of patients and longer toxicity observation windows to capture late-onset or cumulative toxicities by using a weighted likelihood to include the partial toxicity follow-up information. The TITE-PRO-CRM uses both the PRO and the clinician's information during the trial for dose assignment decisions and at the end of the trial to estimate the MTD. The TITE-CRM + PRO uses clinician's information solely to inform dose assignments during the trial and incorporates PRO at the end of the trial for the estimation of the MTD. Simulation studies show that the TITE-PRO-CRM performs similarly to the PRO-CRM in terms of dose recommendation and assignments during the trial while almost halving trial duration in case of an accrual of two patients per observation window. The TITE-CRM + PRO slightly underperforms compared to the TITE-PRO-CRM, but similar performance can be attained by requiring larger sample sizes. We also show that the performance of the proposed methods is robust to higher accrual rates, different toxicity hazards, and correlated time-to-clinician toxicity and time-to-patient toxicity data.

Application of the patient-reported outcomes continual reassessment method to a phase I study of radiotherapy in endometrial cancer

This article considers the concept of designing Phase I clinical trials using both clinician- and patient-reported outcomes to adaptively allocate study participants to tolerable doses and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) at the study conclusion. We describe an application of a Bayesian form of the patient-reported outcomes continual reassessment method (PRO-CRMB) in an ongoing Phase I study of adjuvant hypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in endometrial cancer (NCT04458402). The study's primary objective is to determine the MTD per fraction of WPRT, defined by acceptable clinician- and patient-reported DLT rates. We conduct simulation studies of the operating characteristics of the design and compared them to a rule-based approach. We illustrate that the PRO-CRMB makes appropriate dose assignments during the study to give investigators and reviewers an idea of how the method behaves. In simulation studies, the PRO-CRMB demonstrates superior performance to a 5 + 2 stepwise design in terms of recommending target treatment courses and allocating patients to these courses. The design is accompanied by an easy-to-use R shiny web application to simulate operating characteristics at the design stage and sequentially update dose assignments throughout the trial's conduct.

The value of patient-reported outcomes in single-arm cancer trials

Recently, many cancer drugs have been approved by regulatory agencies based on single-arm studies, where analysis of quality of life (QoL) and patient reported outcomes (PROs) is not a direct comparison with the standard, but the simple description of changes versus baseline and trends over time. This analysis can be potentially biased by missing data: QoL level could be overestimated, and symptoms underestimated. Caution is needed to avoid that a methodologically weak evidence in PROs and QoL data is overrated, if not for the drug approval, for the interpretation of data by scientific community and the communication with patients. PROs experts should be involved in planning, conduction and interpretation of analyses.

Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study

INTRODUCTION

Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236979.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes.

Results

International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.

METHODS

DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.

RESULTS

5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.