Search

Attribution of adverse events (AEs) is critical to oncology drug development and the regulatory process. However, processes for determining the causality of AEs are often sub-optimal, unreliable, and inefficient. Thus, we conducted a toxicity-attribution workshop in Silver Springs MD to develop guidance for improving attribution of AEs in oncology clinical trials. Attribution stakeholder experts from regulatory agencies, sponsors and contract research organizations, clinical trial principal investigators, pre-clinical translational scientists, and research staff involved in capturing attribution information participated. We also included patients treated in oncology clinical trials and academic researchers with expertise in attribution. We identified numerous challenges with AE attribution, including the non-informative nature of and burdens associated with the 5-tier system of attribution, increased complexity of trial logistics, costs and time associated with AE attribution data collection, lack of training in attribution for early-career investigators, insufficient baseline assessments, and lack of consistency in the reporting of treatment-related and treatment-emergent AEs in publications and clinical scientific reports. We developed recommendations to improve attribution: we propose transitioning from the present 5-tier system to a 2-3 tier system for attribution, more complete baseline information on patients' clinical status at trial entry, and mechanisms for more rapid sharing of AE information during trials. Oncology societies should develop recommendations and training in attribution of toxicities. We call for further harmonization and synchronization of recommendations regarding causality safety reporting between FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. Finally, we suggest that journals maintain or develop standardized requirements for reporting attribution in oncology clinical trials.

In this Chapter, Patient Voice in Clinical Trial Programs in Industry, we argue that the Life Sciences industry must adapt if they are to succeed and make medicines with (rather than just for) patients. Those companies able to deliver medicines and interventions that reflect patient priorities and needs as identified through meaningful patient engagement will ultimately prosper. Regulatory bodies and initiatives established to promote patient engagement are providing incentives and platforms for multiple stakeholders to embed the patient perspective in product development. Collaborative approaches are providing practical guidance and frameworks for capturing patient insights. Increasingly, patients’ experiential knowledge is being incorporated into clinical research – including in real-world studies – facilitated by the availability of technology. Authentic patient engagement should strive to ensure representation of the whole population and care continuum. If the patient voice is to be respected in clinical trials programs, open, two-way communication and education will be essential.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard for assessing patients' experience of treatment in oncology, defined in the 21st Century Cures Act as information about patients' experiences with a disease or condition, including the impact of a disease or condition, or a related therapy or clinical investigation on patients' lives; and patient preferences with respect to treatment of their disease or condition [1]. PROs provide a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and risks of new medical products, as well as essential data to inform real-world use. Although RCTs are the ultimate source for information for evaluating products in development, they are not always feasible for rare diseases with few or no effective treatment options available. Thus, it is important to consider other measures that can help to improve the strength of evidence for cell and gene therapies targeting rare indications. While collection of PROs and other patient experience endpoints does not resolve the difficulty of conducting trials in small populations, doing so contributes empirical evidence that informs both product development and patient access. Additionally, including routine collection of PROs in registries may provide supplemental data to further characterize the benefit:risk profile of cell and gene therapies at follow-up times that would be infeasible to operationalize in a clinical trial setting.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Christina Theodore-Oklota,1 Louise Humphrey,2 Christof Wiesner,1 Gabriel Schnetzler,3 Stacie Hudgens,4 Alicyn Campbell1 1Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA; 2Adelphi Values, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK; 3F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; 4Clinical Outcomes Solutions, Tucson, AZ, USA Background: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of rituximab (MabThera®/Rituxan®) has been developed that could reduce administration time and improve patient satisfaction with treatment. The Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) was created to assess patients’ perceptions and satisfaction with rituximab SC (RASQ-SC) or rituximab intravenous (RASQ-IV). We assessed the content validity and psychometric properties of RASQ in patientswith non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Methods: Face and content validity of RASQ-SC and RASQ-IV were qualitatively assessed using 60-minute combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Psychometric validation of RASQ (item performance and reliability) was assessed quantitatively against the established Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), using questionnaire data from the PrefMab (NCT01724021) and MabCute (NCT01461928) clinical studies.Results: RASQ-IV demonstrated excellent coverage of concepts relevant to patients’ (n=10) own treatment experiences and no new concepts were identified. Patients’ expectations of rituximab SC were conceptually consistent with items included in the RASQ-SC, suggesting that the tool is also conceptually adequate. In 1,051 patients from PrefMab and MabCute, correlations with domains such as “RASQ: Physical Impacts” and “CTSQ: Feelings About Side Effects”, “RASQ: Physical Impacts” and “CTSQ: Satisfaction With Therapy”, and “RASQ: Satisfaction” and “CTSQ: Satisfaction With Therapy”, achieved moderate-to-high correlations (>0.4) for convergent domains and

As new cancer treatment regimens demonstrate increased potential to improve patients’ survival, more focus is directed toward the quality of that extension of life and to obtaining additional information from patients regarding their experience with treatment. The utility of capturing patient-reported treatment-related symptoms to complement traditional clinician-rated symptomatic adverse event reporting is well-documented. The National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library aimed at capturing patient-reported symptoms to inform the patient perspective on a treatment’s tolerability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in clinical trials. A practical guideline is needed to inform a priori selection of specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items for use in any given industry-sponsored oncology clinical trial. Standardizing this selection process will foster systematic and consistent data collection as part of drug development and enhance our knowledge on how to use patient-relevant information as part of a treatment’s risk/benefit assessment. This article presents methods and consensus recommendations for selecting specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items to include in early-phase and late-phase oncology clinical trials.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Introduction In the phase III AVAPERL trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer receiving bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance after first-line induction had a significant progression-free survival benefit relative to those treated with single-agent bevacizumab maintenance but with an increase in grade ≥3 adverse events. Here, we compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between AVAPERL maintenance arms. Methods Patient-reported outcomes were collected at designated intervals from preinduction to final visits. HRQOL was assessed using the self-administered European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Quality of Life Lung Cancer–Specific Module 13. Differences in scores of 10 points or more between arms were above the minimum important difference threshold and considered clinically meaningful. Results During induction, patient-reported coughing symptoms improved slightly, whereas fatigue and appetite loss scores worsened relative to preinduction baseline. During maintenance, changes in mean global health status and the majority of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Quality of Life Lung Cancer–Specific Module 13 subscale scores did not differ between trial arms by the minimum important difference defining clinically meaningful (better or worse) patient-reported outcomes. Exceptions were patient-reported role functional status, fatigue symptoms and appetite loss symptoms (favoring bevacizumab), and pain in arm or shoulder symptoms (favoring bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance), which differed by clinically meaningful amounts at more than one maintenance assessment. Conclusions In AVAPERL, HRQOL remained relatively stable throughout maintenance and was generally similar in both arms. Despite an increase in adverse event rates, the addition of pemetrexed to bevacizumab maintenance resulted in similar stabilization of disease symptoms with improved efficacy outcomes.

e18138 Background: Little is known of the changes pts experience in day-to-day function as a consequence of cancer and/or treatment. With ongoing and future oncology drug development, gaining a greater understanding of the functional impact of these agents could help complement assessments of survival and quality of life. We set out to understand “function,” the performance of (and changes in) tasks and roles required for everyday living, and which aspects of function are most meaningful from the pts’ perspective to inform future assessment. Methods: We reviewed literature related to functional assessments used in oncology and conducted 20 1:1 semi-structured interviews to explore how pts describe their daily functioning. Results: There was no consensus on the definition of “function” (N = 40 publications). Interview participants represented a broad spectrum of clinical (e.g. eight cancer types, ECOG status 0–3 [n = 4, 7, 6, and 2, respectively], prior treatment exposure [7/20 received taxanes]) and demographic characteristics. Interview participants had difficulty defining “function;” 7/20 did not provide a definition. Pts referred to 60 unique concepts that were organized into four overarching categories: mobility, cognition, activities (basic activities of daily living, domestic life, social context, and exercise), and roles (e.g. caregiver/parent, employee, spouse/partner) within the research. Functional impairments were described as limitations in mobility and/or cognitive abilities. Interviews also revealed 47 stimuli (e.g. signs/symptoms) that were associated with changes in the aforementioned functional categories as well as 20 different adaptations (e.g. frequency, intensity, precaution/prevention, external aids, proactive behavioral changes) that were used to overcome functional impairment. Conclusions: “Function” is a complex concept; impact on mobility, cognition, and the activities and roles that comprise function are unique and depend on the type of cancer, treatment, and life situation. Results point to the assessment of mobility, cognition, activities, and roles as individual concepts for measuring function comprehensively.

e17620 Background: In collaboration with the FDA, the Critical Path Institute - PRO Consortium NSCLC WG is developing a new PRO measure to assess treatment (tx) benefit in advanced NSCLC trials and...