The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials

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.

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.

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events

BACKGROUND

Patient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials.

METHODS

Here, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology.

RESULTS

We describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

This tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.

METHODS

Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.

CONCLUSION

While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.

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.

Identifying patient-valued outcomes for use in early phase trials of ocular surface disease interventions

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to evaluate the impact of dry eye symptoms (DES) on daily life. Early-phase clinical trials provide an opportunity to evaluate PRO strategies. Existing measures identified through systematic review omitted important concepts that mattered to patients. The aim of our work was to develop a conceptual map of DES and assess the relative importance of identified concepts.

METHODS

Web-based group concept mapping software was used to develop a conceptual map. This semi-quantitative mixed-methods approach consists of three stages 1) statement generation, 2) thematic sorting, 3) rating of statements for importance [1 (not important), 2 (important), 3 (very important)] and relevance [1 (not my experience), 2 (sometimes my experience); 3 (definitely my experience)]. Thirty-nine participants were recruited from two UK-based patient support groups (British Sjögren's Syndrome Association, PemFriends). Three withdrew, two for health reasons and one struggled with the web-based format.

RESULTS

125 statements and six thematic clusters were generated. The Environmental Impacts cluster scored highest for importance (2.45), followed by Pain and Discomfort (2.35), Eye Treatments (2.32), Daily Impact (2.07), Psychosocial Issues (1.78) and Miscellaneous (1.78). Mapping statements against existing PRO measures confirmed a number of important missing issues including the impact of 'UV levels' (2.50), hot dry weather (2.33), the temporal aspects of pain (2.64), and issues with night-driving (2.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Group concept mapping identified important issues for people living with DES not currently captured by existing PROs, highlighting the need for additional PRO items to be considered for use in clinical trials.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

Dental patient-reported outcomes following traumatic dental injuries and treatment: A narrative review

Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are self-reported descriptions of a patient's oral health status that are not modified or interpreted by a healthcare professional. Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) are objective or subjective measurements used to assess dPROs. In oral healthcare settings, the emphasis on assessing treatment outcomes from the patient's perspective has increased and this is particularly important after traumatic dental injuries (TDIs), as this group of injuries represent the fifth most prevalent disease or condition worldwide. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current use of dPROs and dPROMs in the field of dental traumatology. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, swelling, aesthetics, function, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, number of clinical visits and trauma-related dental anxiety are the key dPROs following TDIs. Clinicians and researchers should consider the well-being of patients as their top priority and conduct routine evaluations of dPROs using measures that are appropriate, accurate and reflect what is important to the patient. After a TDI, dPROs can assist clinicians and patients to choose the best management option(s) for each individual patient and potentially improve the methodology, design and relevance of clinical studies.

Patient-reported outcomes in adoptive cell-therapy trials: mind the gap

Adoptive cell therapies (ACT) have demonstrated promise in the treatment of patients with cancer, leading to long-lasting responses and, in some cases, even cure. Technological advances have brought these individualized therapies closer to reality, establishing them as credible therapeutic option. However, to date, few efforts have been made to understand patients' experience during ACT trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which are instruments used to report PROs, are increasingly being used in oncology to capture patients' perspective, provide real-world data on treatment safety, and support decision-making processes, such as health economic decisions. Due to the inherent complexity of ACT, the inclusion of PROMs in this field remains limited. In this commentary, we discuss the benefit of capturing PROs in ACT trials, the challenges of PROM administration and collection, and we propose simple and actionable recommendations to promote their adoption in ACT trials.

Feasibility of a new electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system for an advanced therapy clinical trial in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (PROmics): protocol for a qualitative feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to capture PRO data in clinical trials is increasing; however, their feasibility, acceptability and utility in clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are not yet well understood. This protocol describes a qualitative study that aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO data capture using a trial-specific ePRO system (the PROmics system) within an advanced therapy trial involving patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and Crohn's disease).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol for a remote, qualitative, interview-based feasibility study is embedded within the POLARISE trial, a single-arm, phase II, multisite ATMP basket trial in the UK. 10-15 patients enrolled in the POLARISE trial and 10-15 research team members at the trial sites will be recruited. Participants will take part in semistructured interviews which will be transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically according to the framework method. Data collection and analysis will occur concurrently and iteratively. Researcher triangulation will be used to achieve a consensus-based analysis, enhancing rigour and trustworthiness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the London-West London and GTAC Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/LO/0475). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to data collection. The study findings will be published in peer-review journals and disseminated via conference presentations and other media. Our patient and public involvement and engagement group and ATMP stakeholder networks will be consulted to maximise dissemination and impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN80103507.

Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials on Shoulder Rotator Cuff Injuries Is Suboptimal and Requires Standardization

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance