Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Methods for item selection in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Treatment Tolerability in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

There has been a rapid expansion of novel therapeutics for hematologic malignancies, including monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, and cellular therapies, which confer different treatment-related toxicities and symptomatic adverse events (AEs) than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies. Given that patients with blood cancers are living longer with these newer treatments, with some therapies requiring indefinite or time-intensive administration, consideration of patient-reported tolerability and effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly relevant. Historically, clinical trials have focused on the efficacy and safety of therapies. While related to safety and not intended to replace it, "treatment tolerability" is a distinct construct defined as the extent to which symptomatic and nonsymptomatic AEs impact a patient's ability and desire to continue with current treatment dosing, which also encompasses how patients feel and function while undergoing anticancer therapies. Assessment of tolerability requires the systematic and rigorous measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this review, we discuss the introduction of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) into hematology clinical trials and how PROs inform the measurement of treatment tolerability, including symptomatic adverse events, physical and role functioning, and overall side effect burden. Selected PROMs for measurement of these core tolerability domains are outlined, with a focus on novel analytic tools that have been developed for the longitudinal analysis of tolerability data. Further, we outline ongoing studies to accelerate integration of PROs throughout the cancer care spectrum, from early-stage drug development to routine clinical care, with the goal of improving both HRQoL and survival.

Efficacy of Lenvatinib Combined with PD-1 Inhibitor versus Sorafenib and PD-1 Inhibitor with or Without TACE for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Extrahepatic Metastasis

Background

Lenvatinib or Sorafenib combined with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor as recommend treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with extrahepatic metastasis (EHM). We aimed to compared the prognosis of Lenvatinib plus PD-1 inhibitor (Len+PD-1) versus Sorafenib plus PD-1 (Sora+PD-1) as an initial therapy for HCC with EHM.

Methods

Incorporating a sum of 229 HCC patients with EHM were encompassed within this study, with 127 in the Sora+PD-1 group and 102 in the Len+PD-1 group. Through propensity score matching (PSM), we compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and patient safety between these two groups.

Results

The median OS were 13.0 months and 14.2 months in the Sora+PD-1 group and Len+PD-1 group. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month OS rates were 92.9%, 58.9% and 5.6% in Sora+PD-1 group and 93.1%, 61.8% and 22.6% in Len+PD-1 group, respectively. The Len+PD-1 group had obviously better OS than the Sora+PD-1 group (P = 0.002). The 3-, 6-, and 12-month PFS rates were 76.4%, 27.6% and 1.6% in Sora+PD-1 group and 86.2%, 50.5% and 12.2% in Len+PD-1 group, respectively. Compared with Sora+PD-1 group, the Len+PD-1 group had obviously better PFS (P < 0.001). Analysis within subgroups showed that OS was significant in patients receiving TACE in Len+PD-1 group than Sora+PD-1 group (p = 0.003).

Conclusion

Len+PD-1 group had longer OS and PFS than Sora+PD-1 group for patient with EHM. In addition, OS in patients received TACE was improved with Len+PD-1 treatment. For patients without TACE, there was no significance between Sora+PD-1 and Len+PD-1 groups.

Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies.

METHODS

An ePRO system was designed to be used in a single arm, multi-centre, phase II basket trial investigating the safety and activity of the use of ORBCEL-C™ in the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions. ORBCEL-C™ is an enriched Mesenchymal Stromal Cells product isolated from human umbilical cord tissue using CD362+ cell selection. Usability testing sessions were conducted using cognitive interviews and the 'Think Aloud' method with patient advisory group members and Research Nurses to assess the usability of the system.

RESULTS

Nine patient partners and seven research nurses took part in one usability testing session. Measures of fatigue and health-related quality of life, the PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 global tolerability question were included in the ePRO system. Alert notifications to the clinical team were triggered by PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 scores. Patient participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app. Two patients were unable to complete the testing session, due to technical issues. Research Nurses suggested minor modifications to improve functionality and the layout of the clinician dashboard and the training materials.

CONCLUSION

By testing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of our novel ePRO system (PROmicsR), we learnt that most people with an inflammatory condition found it easy to report their symptoms using an app on their own device. Their experiences using the PROmicsR ePRO system within a trial environment will be further explored in our upcoming feasibility testing. Research nurses were also positive and found the clinical dashboard easy-to-use. Using ePROs in early phase trials is important in order to provide evidence of therapeutic responses and tolerability, increase the evidence based, and inform methodology development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN80103507. Registered 01 April 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80103507.

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.

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.

Identifying symptomatic adverse events using the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion mutations

OBJECTIVE

Tolerability and safety of treatments are important in oncology trials and should be informed by patient assessments. We identified the most relevant patient-reported symptomatic adverse events (AEs) to measure in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

METHODS

This study selected relevant symptomatic AEs from 78 AEs available in the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Initially, symptomatic AEs were selected based on literature and product labeling reviews, and then core sets of symptomatic AEs were identified by patient and clinician interviews. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were performed using the data collected from three iterative rounds of patient interviews.

RESULTS

During concept elicitation interviews involving 29 patients, 12 symptomatic AEs were identified and were then adapted into a 25-item PRO-CTCAE form for use in future clinical trials along with commonly used PRO measures. Cognitive interviews showed that the PRO-CTCAE items were easy to answer and appropriate for assessing the patients' experience with symptomatic AEs. This study also assessed disease symptoms, impacts, and overall patient experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The 25-item PRO-CTCAE form captures the most relevant symptomatic AEs in this patient population, and it is available for future studies. Baseline characterization of AEs associated with this distinct patient group contributes to our broader knowledge about NSCLC and through platforms like Project Patient Voice will expand our understanding of treatment tolerability and safety for NSCLC. Ultimately, this data collection will help inform decision-making for patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, and regulators.

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.

Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation following transarterial chemoembolisation combined with sorafenib for intermediate stage recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The evidence of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) following transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) combined with sorafenib for intermediate-stage recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is limited. Patient responses to this treatment vary because of the heterogeneous nature of RHCC, making it important to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from this combination therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of RFA following TACE and sorafenib for the intermediate-stage RHCC.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre, cohort study included 363 patients with intermediate-stage RHCC underwent TACE combined with sorafenib (TACE-sorafenib group) or RFA following TACE and sorafenib (TACE-sorafenib + RFA group) between January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2015 from four institutions in China. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and efficacy of patients were compared between the two groups by propensity score-matching (PSM).

FINDINGS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 97.7%, 83.7%, 54.7% in TACE-sorafenib + RFA group, and 93.3%, 57.0%, 32.7% in TACE-sorafenib group. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year PFS rates were 85.3%, 58.0%, 26.9% in TACE-sorafenib + RFA group, and 55.3%, 30.7%, 15.3% in TACE-sorafenib group. Compared with the TACE-sorafenib group, the TACE-sorafenib + RFA group had significantly longer OS (HR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.40-0.73; P < 0.001) and PFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41-0.66; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis was conducted to precisely screen out the beneficial population from RFA treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that addition of RFA following TACE and sorafenib combination was superior to TACE combined with sorafenib for intermediate-stage RHCC, resulting in longer OS and PFS. Patients who had good response to TACE and achieved downstaging successfully could not benefit from the RFA therapy.

FUNDING

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81627803), Chen Xiao-Ping Science and Technology Development Fund (CXPJJH1200009-06).

Longitudinal use of patient reported outcomes in pediatric leukemia and lymphoma reveals clinically relevant symptomatic adverse events

BACKGROUND

Leukemia and lymphoma (LL) are the most common cancer diagnoses of childhood with high survival rates, but not without impact on the child's functioning and quality of life. This study aimed to use patient-reported data to describe the symptomatic adverse event (AE) experiences among children with LL diagnoses.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty seven children and adolescents aged 7-18 years with a first LL diagnosis completed the Pediatric Patient-Reported version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures before starting a treatment course (T1) and after the treatment (T2).

RESULTS

Fatigue was the most severe AE (68.1% at T1; 67% at T2) and caused the most interference over time. Gastrointestinal AEs were also quite common (e.g., nausea 46.3% at T1 and 48.9% at T2; abdominal pain 42.4% at T1; 46.5% at T2). In general, symptoms were present both at T1 and T2 and did not change significantly in severity or interference. The prevalence of AEs varied by LL disease group (e.g., nausea was most common in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), fatigue was most severe in ALL and Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), acute myeloid leukemia had the fewest AEs).

CONCLUSION

Despite current supportive care regimens, many children with LL continue to report fatigue, pain, insomnia, and gastrointestinal symptoms as the most frequent or severe symptoms during therapy.

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.

Sorafenib as adjuvant therapy following radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered as a convenient treatment with mild damage in treating recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for patients with high risk of progression after RFA still needs new strategies to decrease the repeat recurrence.

METHODS

A total of 460 patients with RHCC within Milan criteria in four institutions were enrolled. 174 pairs were enrolled after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) and tumor-free survival (TFS) were compared between the two groups. A quantitative score system was established to screen out the beneficial population from RFA-sorafenib treatment.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 97.7%, 83.7%, 54.7% for RFA-sorafenib group, and 93.1%, 61.3%, 30.9% for RFA group after PSM, respectively. Compared with the RFA group, the RFA-sorafenib group had significantly better OS (P < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year TFS rates were 90.8%, 49.0%, 20.4% for RFA-sorafenib group, and 67.8%, 28.0%, 14.5% for RFA group after PSM. The difference was observed significantly between RFA-sorafenib group and RFA group (P < 0.001). A quantitative risk score system was established to precisely screen out the beneficial population from RFA-sorafenib treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant sorafenib after RFA was superior to RFA alone in improving survival outcomes in patients with recurrent HCC within Milan criteria after initial hepatectomy. Subgroup analyses concluded that patients with high risk score had significantly longer survival from sorafenib administration.

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.

Measuring patient-reported physical functioning and fatigue in myelodysplastic syndromes using a modular approach based on EORTC QLQ-C30

Purpose

Physical functioning and fatigue are key patient concerns in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The objective of this research was to generate supportive quantitative evidence for modular physical functioning and fatigue measures based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (QLQ-C30) and a customized selection of 10 supplemental items from the EORTC Item Library.

Methods

The 40 items were completed online cross-sectionally by 51 patients (higher risk [HR] MDS: 53%; CMML: 26%; AML: 10%). Psychometric analyses based on Rasch measurement theory (RMT) were conducted on the QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue domains as well as measures combining QLQ-C30 and supplemental items. A measure of anemia-related symptoms composed of QLQ-C30 and supplemental items covering fatigue, dyspnea, and dizziness was also investigated.

Results

The QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue domains showed good targeting to the sample and adequate reliability, with few conceptual gaps identified. Combining the QLQ-C30 and supplemental physical functioning and fatigue items improved the conceptual coverage and the reliability of the measures. The patient-reported anemia-related symptom measure showed good measurement performance, underpinned by a clinically meaningful characterization of severity of these symptoms over a spectrum, starting with fatigue, then dyspnea, and finally dizziness (most severe).

Conclusion

The modular measurement approach of combining EORTC QLQ-C30 and Item Library offers a promising pragmatic solution to the measurement of physical functioning and fatigue, as well as anemia-related symptoms in clinical trials conducted in HR MDS, CMML, and AML.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00334-w.

Validation of the caregiver Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events measure

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in survival rates, cancer treatments have significant side effects that affect the quality of life of children and their families. When an ill child cannot self-report symptoms (eg, he or she is too ill), caregiver (parent) reporting becomes critical. This study evaluates the validity and reliability of the caregiver-reported Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver]) measure.

METHODS

A diverse sample of caregivers with children receiving treatment at 9 oncology centers completed the Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver] measure, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System^® (PROMIS^® ) Parent Proxy measures, the Lansky Play-Performance Scale (PPS), medication use questions, and Global Impressions of Change (GIC). Construct validity (including convergent, discriminant, and known groups validity and responsiveness over time) and reliability (stability) were examined.

RESULTS

A majority of the 473 caregivers were female (85%), non-Hispanic White (61%), and married (75%). Symptoms assessed with the Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver] and PROMIS Parent Proxy measures were strongly correlated (e.g., r for pain = 0.78; r for fatigue = 0.78; and r for depression = 0.83). Most of the Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver] item mean scores distinguished among PPS function levels and between children who did take medications for symptom control and children who did not. Changes in Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver] item mean scores were responsive to GIC over time. Test-retest evaluation found moderate to high agreement (57.8%-93.3%) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found strong evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity, known groups validity, responsiveness, and stability of the Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver] measure in a large and diverse sample of caregivers. The caregiver perspective provides a valuable and unique insight into the experiences of children and adolescents undergoing cancer treatment.

LAY SUMMARY

Despite advances in cancer treatments, children and adolescents continue to suffer from treatment side effects, including pain, nausea, fatigue, and emotional distress, that can adversely affect quality of life for children and their families. Although it is best for children to report how they are feeling, there are times when a child may be too young or too ill to self-report. This study provides critical evidence for a new type of questionnaire that allows the caregiver or parent to report accurately what the child is experiencing. This measure can be used to improve adverse event reporting and child cancer care.

Online monitoring of patient self-reported adverse events in early phase clinical trials: Views from patients, clinicians, and trial staff

BACKGROUND/AIMS

New classes of cancer drugs bring a range of unknown and undesirable adverse events. Adverse event monitoring is essential in phase I trials to assess toxicity and safety. In phase II, the focus is also on efficacy but robust data on adverse events continue to inform the safety and the adverse event profile. Standard, clinician-led monitoring has been shown to underestimate patients' symptoms. Hence, patient-reported adverse event monitoring has been argued to complement and improve the information on adverse events in early phase clinical trials. With advances in information technology, real-time patient self-reported adverse events in trials are feasible. This study explored the experiences and procedures for reporting adverse events in early phase trials among patients, clinical staff, and trial staff, and their views on using an electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event system in this setting.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients, purposively sampled across ages, gender, and different phases of trials, and with clinical and trial-related staff involved in early phase trials (e.g. consultants, research nurses, hospital-based trial assistants/data managers, trial unit management staff). Interviews explored patient experiences and views on current adverse event reporting processes and electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. Framework analysis techniques were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Interviewees were from two hospital trusts with early phase portfolios in England and a trial unit, and included sixteen patients, five consultants, four research nurses, five hospital-based trial staff, and two trial unit staff. Interviews identified three key themes (patient experiences, data flow, and views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting). Stakeholders emphasised the intensity of trials for patients and the importance of extensive information provision within the uncertainty of early phase trial drugs. Regular face-to-face appointments for patients supplemented by telephone contact aimed to capture any adverse events. Delayed or under-reporting of mild- or low-severity symptoms was evident among patients. Hospital-based staff highlighted the challenges of current data collection including intense timescales, monitoring by trial sponsors, and high workload. Positive views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse events highlighted that this could provide a more comprehensive and accurate view on the side effects of new drugs. Clinical staff emphasised patient safety and the need for clear responsibilities for monitoring. The need for careful decision-making about data flow and symptom attribution was highlighted; with trial unit staff emphasising the need for clinician review.

CONCLUSION

Technology advances mean it is timely to explore the benefits and challenges of electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. This is a complex area warranting further consideration within the trial community. We have developed an online patient self-reporting tool and a small pilot with early phase trial patients is underway.

Patient-reported outcomes item selection for bladder cancer patients in chemo- or immunotherapy

Background

Selection of specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for cancer patients requires careful consideration to the purpose and population at aim. Here we report the process of choosing which items to include in a bladder cancer population in chemo- or immunotherapy based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

Methods

Initial PRO-CTCAE symptoms were chosen through 1) medical record audit 2) patient interviews 3) summary of product characteristics from European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration for the applied chemotherapies, and 4) toxicity reporting from Phase 2 and 3 trials for immunotherapies applied in patients with urothelial cancer. The selected questions were applied in a prospective cohort of 78 bladder cancer patients receiving chemo- or immunotherapy at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark. Symptoms tested in this population were selected for the final module if they appeared in ≥3 of the following groupings a) the most prevalent PRO-CTCAE symptoms grade ≥ 2 overall during treatment b) the PRO-CTCAE symptoms reported in conjunction with hospital admissions or mentioned in focus group interviews discussing which symptoms were prevalent in this patient group with specialized c) nurses or d) physicians. The authors also included symptoms in the final module if they were present in two of the above groups and defined as actionable by clinicians.

Results

From the initial selection of PRO-CTCAE symptoms, a total of 45 PRO-CTCAE symptoms explored by 84 PRO-CTCAE questions were retrieved. Through the second selection process based on the described criteria, the study group agreed on 15 PRO-CTCAE symptoms explored by 30 PRO-CTCAE items to be appropriate and relevant for the bladder population during medical oncological treatment.

Conclusions

The selection of disease specific PROs in a bladder cancer population was feasible. The process revealed several steps of selection needed in order to reach a final module for clinical application.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-019-0141-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.