Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 4;113(5):532-542.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa174.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: A Systematic Review

Houssein Safa et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient centeredness in clinical trials; however, in the field of rapidly emerging and clinically impressive immunotherapy, data on PROs are limited.

Methods: We systematically identified all immunotherapy approvals from 2011 through 2018 and assessed the analytic tools and reporting quality of associated PRO reports. For randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we developed a novel 24-point scoring scale: the PRO Endpoints Analysis Score based on 24 criteria derived from the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

Results: We assessed 44 trial publications supporting 42 immunotherapy approvals. PROs were published for 21 of the 44 (47.7%) trial publications. Twenty-three trials (52.3%) were RCTs and 21 (47.7%) pertained to single-arm trials. The median time between primary clinical outcomes publications and their corresponding secondary PRO publications was 19 months (interquartile range = 9-29 months). Of the 21 PRO reports, 4 (19.0%) reported a specific hypothesis, and most (85.7%) used descriptive statistics. Three (3 of 21 [14.3%]) studies performed a control for type I error. As for RCTs, 14 of 23 (60.9%) published PRO data, including 13 (56.5%) that published a secondary dedicated manuscript. One-half of these 14 trials scored less than 13 points on the 24-point PRO Endpoints Analysis Score. The mean score was 12.71 (range = 5-17, SD = 3.71), and none met all the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

Conclusions: Suboptimal reporting of PROs occurs regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to maximize the value of these data in cancer immunotherapy development and approval.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study selection flowchart. FDA = Food and Drug Administration; PRO = patient-reported outcome.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hargadon KM, Johnson CE, Williams CJ.. Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018;62:29-39. - PubMed
    1. Riley RS, June CH, Langer R, et al.Delivery technologies for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(3):175-196. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boyiadzis MM, Dhodapkar MV, Brentjens RJ, et al.Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T therapies for the treatment of hematologic malignancies: clinical perspective and significance. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):137. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Han X, Wang Y, Wei J, et al.Multi-antigen-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cells for cancer therapy. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12(1):128. - PMC - PubMed
    1. West HJ. JAMA oncology patient page. Immune checkpoint inhibitors. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):115. - PubMed

Publication types