Oncology patient-reported claims: Maximising the chance for success

5Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives/purpose: To review Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) labelling claims achieved in oncology in Europe and in the United States and consider the benefits, and challenges faced. Methods: PROLabels database was searched to identify oncology products with PRO labelling approved in Europe since 1995 or in the United States since 1998. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) websites and guidance documents were reviewed. PUBMED was searched for articles on PRO claims in oncology. Results: Among all oncology products approved, 22 were identified with PRO claims; 10 in the United States, 7 in Europe, and 5 in both. The language used in the labelling was limited to benefit (e.g. "...resulted in symptom benefits by significantly prolonging time to deterioration in cough, dyspnoea, and pain, versus placebo") and equivalence (e.g. "no statistical differences were observed between treatment groups for global QoL"). Seven products used a validated HRQoL tool; two used symptom tools; two used both; seven used single-item symptom measures (one was unknown). The following emerged as likely reasons for success: ensuring systematic PRO data collection; clear rationale for pre-specified endpoints; adequately powered trials to detect differences and clinically significant changes; adjusting for multiplicity; developing an a priori statistical analysis plan including primary and subgroup analyses, dealing with missing data, pooling multiple-site data; establishing clinical versus statistical significance; interpreting failure to detect change. End-stage patient drop-out rates and cessation of trials due to exceptional therapeutic benefit pose significant challenges to demonstrating treatment PRO improvement. Conclusions: PRO labelling claims demonstrate treatment impact and the trade-off between efficacy and side effects ultimately facilitating product differentiation. Reliable and valid instruments specific to the desired language, claim, and target population are required. Practical considerations include rationale for study endpoints, transparency in assumptions, and attention to subtle variations in data. Copyright: © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.

Figures

  • Table 1: PRO label claims granted in oncology products by FDA and EMA, 1995 2010
  • Table 2: Language used in PRO label claims
  • Table 3: PRO instruments used to support label claims, post 2006
  • Figure 1: Common problems with classic PRO measurements.
  • Figure 2: Strategic considerations across an anti-cancer product life-cycle.

References Powered by Scopus

Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance

0
1460Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

488Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Is Breast Cancer Survival Improving? Trends in Survival for Patients with Recurrent Breast Cancer Diagnosed from 1974 through 2000

460Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Clinical Trial Patient-reported Outcomes Data: Going beyond the Label in Oncology

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Patient-reported outcomes validated in phase 3 clinical trials: a targeted literature review

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

One Programme, Four Stakeholders: An Overview of the Utilisation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Intervention Development to Meet the Needs of Regulators, Payers, Healthcare Professionals and Patients

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kitchen, H., Rofail, D., Caron, M., & Emery, M. P. (2011, May 9). Oncology patient-reported claims: Maximising the chance for success. Ecancermedicalscience. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2011.212

Readers over time

‘11‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2302468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 8

57%

Researcher 5

36%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

38%

Psychology 4

31%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

23%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0