Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase II Cancer Clinical Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (32) ◽  
pp. 5058-5062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne I. Wagner ◽  
Lari Wenzel ◽  
Edward Shaw ◽  
David Cella
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
The Impact

With increasing limits on the resources available to conduct cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in treatment and symptom management trials must be prioritized. Although it has been suggested on occasion that phase III trials should take precedence over phase II trials, we argue that there is a clear and important role for PRO assessment in phase II trials going forward. To illustrate the value realized from including PROs in phase II trials, we provide case examples from cancer treatment and supportive care. The benefits of including PROs in symptom management intervention research are exemplified using phase II trials targeting cognitive impairment. The inclusion of PROs in phase II cancer clinical trials adds important information about the impact of treatment in health-related quality of life, and advances the science of PRO measurement. These contributions significantly enhance the design of phase III trials, ultimately leading to the efficient utilization of clinical trial resources.

scholarly journals Suggestions for improving the design of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis—results of a systematic analysis of completed phase III trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sinje Gehr ◽  
Thomas Kaiser ◽  
Reinhold Kreutz ◽  
Wolf-Dieter Ludwig ◽  
Friedemann Paul
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Progressive Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Overview ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

AbstractThis manuscript reviews the primary and secondary endpoints of pivotal phase III trials with immunomodulatory drugs in multiple sclerosis (MS). Considering the limitations of previous trial designs, we propose new standards for the planning of clinical trials, taking into account latest insights into MS pathophysiology and patient-relevant aspects. Using a systematic overview of published phase III (pivotal) trials performed as part of application for drug market approval, we evaluate the following characteristics: trial duration, number of trial participants, comparators, and endpoints (primary, secondary, magnetic resonance imaging outcome, and patient-reported outcomes). From a patient perspective, the primary and secondary endpoints of clinical trials are only partially relevant. High-quality trial data pertaining to efficacy and safety that stretch beyond the time frame of pivotal trials are almost non-existent. Understanding of long-term benefits and risks of disease-modifying MS therapy is largely lacking. Concrete proposals for the trial designs of relapsing (remitting) multiple sclerosis/clinically isolated syndrome, primary progressive multiple sclerosis, and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (e.g., study duration, mechanism of action, and choice of endpoints) are presented based on the results of the systematic overview. Given the increasing number of available immunotherapies, the therapeutic strategy in MS has shifted from a mere “relapse-prevention” approach to a personalized provision of medical care as to the choice of the appropriate drugs and their sequential application over the course of the disease. This personalized provision takes patient preferences as well as disease-related factors into consideration such as objective clinical and radiographic findings but also very burdensome symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and cognitive impairment. Future trial designs in MS will have to assign higher relevance to these patient-reported outcomes and will also have to implement surrogate measures that can serve as predictive markers for individual treatment response to new and investigational immunotherapies. This is an indispensable prerequisite to maximize the benefit of individual patients when participating in clinical trials. Moreover, such appropriate trial designs and suitable enrolment criteria that correspond to the mode of action of the study drug will facilitate targeted prevention of adverse events, thus mitigating risks for individual study participants.

The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1355-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn C. Gotay ◽  
Crissy T. Kawamoto ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
Fabio Efficace
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), routinely collected as a part of cancer clinical trials, have been linked with survival in numerous clinical studies, but a comprehensive critical review has not been reported. This study systematically assessed the impact of PROs on patient survival after a cancer diagnosis within the context of clinical trials. Design Cancer clinical trials that assessed baseline PROs and mortality were identified through MEDLINE (through December 2006) supplemented by the Cochrane database, American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology abstracts and hand searches. Inclusion criteria were publication in English language and use of multivariate analyses of PROs that controlled for one or more clinical factors. Two raters reviewed each study, abstracted data, and assessed study quality; two additional raters verified abstractions. Results In 36 of 39 studies (N = 13,874), at least one PRO was significantly associated with survival (P < .05) in multivariate analysis, with varying effect sizes. Studies of lung (n = 12) and breast cancer (n = 8) were most prevalent. The most commonly assessed PRO was quality of life, measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 in 56% of studies. Clinical variables adjusted for included performance status (PS), treatment arm, stage, weight loss, and serum markers. Results indicated that PROs provide distinct prognostic information beyond standard clinical measures in cancer clinical trials. Conclusion PROs might be considered for stratification purposes in future trials, as they were often better predictors of survival than PS. Studies are needed to determine whether interventions that improve PROs also increase survival and to identify explanatory mechanisms through which PROs relate to survival.

Methodologic Lessons Learned From Hot Flash Studies

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (23) ◽  
pp. 4280-4290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff A. Sloan ◽  
Charles L. Loprinzi ◽  
Paul J. Novotny ◽  
Debra L. Barton ◽  
Beth I. Lavasseur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Flash Intensity ◽  
Hot Flash ◽  
Parametric Data ◽  
Patient Reported

PURPOSE: In the course of conducting a series of prospective clinical trials devoted to defining new treatment opportunities for hot flashes in cancer survivors, considerable experience has been acquired with related methodologic issues. This article has been written in response to many queries regarding this methodology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of seven different clinical trials that involved 968 patients was used for this work. Reliable and valid definitions of hot flash intensity were developed from patient-reported descriptions. Concomitant validity and reliability assessment of patient-completed diaries was undertaken to compare hot flash data with toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) end points and to examine consistency across patient groups using variability analysis and correlation procedures. Parametric data from this meta-analysis was used to examine relative power considerations for the design of phase II and phase III clinical trials. RESULTS: Daily diaries used in these studies exhibited consistency and reliability and had few missing data. Hot flash frequency and hot flash score (frequency multiplied by average severity) variables produced almost identical end point results. For phase III placebo-controlled studies, 50 patients per treatment arm seem appropriate to provide sufficient power specifications to detect a clinically meaningful change in hot flash activity. For phase II trials, 25 patients per trial seem to provide reasonable estimates of eventual hot flash efficacy to screen potential agents for more definitive testing. CONCLUSION: Given the data gained from these experiences, we can plan and carry out more efficient trials to identify efficacious agents for the reduction of hot flash activity.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase III Cancer Treatment Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (32) ◽  
pp. 5063-5069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Carolyn C. Gotay
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Design Choice ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose This article examines the challenges, opportunities, and successes that have occurred in the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in phase III cancer clinical trials. Methods An informal survey of the leadership of US cooperative group PRO investigators identified diverse trials in which PROs had been measured. Exemplary trials were selected for lessons learned and for examination of successful strategies. Results We review four challenging trials in depth, illustrating some of the difficulties in integrating PROs within treatment trials, including issues related to missing data, lack of procedures for monitoring patients and ensuring collection of PRO data, and missed opportunities in publication of treatment and PRO outcomes together. Four examples of successful trials are highlighted. Conclusion As a result of this review, the authors make specific recommendations related to the use of PROs in phase III trials, focusing on issues related to design, choice of PRO instrument and frequency of administration, analysis, and publication strategies.

Progression-Free Survival Rate As Primary End Point for Phase II Cancer Clinical Trials: Application to Mesothelioma—The EORTC Lung Cancer Group

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (19) ◽  
pp. 3007-3012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Francart ◽  
Catherine Legrand ◽  
Richard Sylvester ◽  
Martine Van Glabbeke ◽  
Jan P. van Meerbeeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point

Purpose Phase II cancer clinical trials play a key role in the development of new drugs. These trials should be designed to accurately determine if the drug should be abandoned or if it is sufficiently promising for further investigation in phase III trials. With new cytostatic agents or when the response assessment is difficult, using the progression-free survival rate (PFSR) at a fixed time point, such as 3, 4, 5, or 6 months, instead of the response rate (RR) as the primary end point is an alternative approach. To design future phase II trials, reference values for PFSRs that correspond to drugs with insufficient (P0) and sufficient (P1) clinical activity (CA) are necessary. This article provides these values in mesothelioma. Materials and Methods The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer database registered ten closed mesothelioma trials (nine phase II trials and one phase III trial) with 523 total patients. Trials were grouped into three categories according to the published RR: significant (n = 259), moderate (n = 142), and insufficient (n = 122) CA. Results The PFSRs at 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, respectively, were as follows: 72%, 67%, 51%, and 43% in the group with significant CA; 59%, 51%, 42%, and 35% with moderate CA; and 52%, 40%, 34%, and 28% with insufficient CA. Conclusion These values may be used to define relevant P0 and P1 values in future phase II mesothelioma trials that use PFSR as the primary end point.

Overview of the Patient Perspective at OMERACT 10 — Conceptualizing Methods for Developing Patient-Reported Outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1699-1701 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN R. KIRWAN ◽  
PETER S. TUGWELL
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Work ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Instrument Selection ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Choice Of Instruments ◽  
The Way

This overview draws out the main conclusions from the 4 workshops focused on incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment at the 10th Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 10) conference. They raised methodological issues about the choice of outcome domains to include in clinical trials, the development or choice of instruments to measure these domains, and the way these instruments might capture the impact of a disease and its treatment. The need to develop a more rigorous conceptual model of quantifying the way conditions affect health, and the need to ensure patients are directly involved in the decisions about domains and instruments, emerged clearly. The OMERACT participants voted to develop guidelines for domain and instrument selection, and conceptual and experimental work will be brought forward to revise and upgrade the OMERACT Filter.

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

Biofeedback

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lehrer
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Environment ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Psychosomatic Problems ◽  
Biofeedback Research

Although evidence supports the efficacy of biofeedback for treating a number of disorders and for enhancing performance, significant barriers block both needed research and payer support for this method. Biofeedback has demonstrated effects in changing psychophysiological substrates of various emotional, physical, and psychosomatic problems, but payers are reluctant to reimburse for biofeedback services. A considerable amount of biofeedback research is in the form of relatively small well-controlled trials (Phase II trials). This article argues for greater payer support and research support for larger trials in the “real life” clinical environment (Phase III trials) and meta-analytic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document