BACKGROUND: Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles. METHODS: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed. RESULTS: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development.
BACKGROUND:Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles. METHODS: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed. RESULTS: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development.
Authors: Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Walter M Stadler; Celestia Higano; Ethan Basch; Karim Fizazi; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tomasz M Beer; Michael A Carducci; Kim N Chi; Paul G Corn; Johann S de Bono; Robert Dreicer; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Maha Hussain; Wm Kevin Kelly; Glenn Liu; Christopher Logothetis; David Nanus; Mark N Stein; Dana E Rathkopf; Susan F Slovin; Charles J Ryan; Oliver Sartor; Eric J Small; Matthew Raymond Smith; Cora N Sternberg; Mary-Ellen Taplin; George Wilding; Peter S Nelson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nils D Arvold; Terri S Armstrong; Katherine E Warren; Susan M Chang; Lisa M DeAngelis; Jaishri Blakeley; Marc C Chamberlain; Erin Dunbar; Herbert H Loong; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Michael A Vogelbaum; Ying Yuan; Michael Weller; Martin van den Bent; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Ethan M Basch; Mark Scholz; Johann S de Bono; Nicholas Vogelzang; Paul de Souza; Gavin Marx; Ulka Vaishampayan; Saby George; James K Schwarz; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Joseph M O'Sullivan; Arash Rezazadeh Kalebasty; Kim N Chi; Robert Dreicer; Thomas E Hutson; Amylou C Dueck; Antonia V Bennett; Erica Dayan; Milan Mangeshkar; Jaymes Holland; Aaron L Weitzman; Howard I Scher Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta A Williams; Qiuling Shi; Elisabeth G Vichaya; Patrick M Dougherty; Sheeba K Thomas; Emre Yucel; Christel C Bastida; Jeanie F Woodruff; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Meena N Murugappan; Bellinda L King-Kallimanis; Gregory H Reaman; Vishal Bhatnagar; Erica G Horodniceanu; Najat Bouchkouj; Paul G Kluetz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tim Luckett; Jane Phillips; Meera Agar; Lawrence Lam; Patricia M Davidson; Nicola McCaffrey; Frances Boyle; Tim Shaw; David C Currow; Alison Read; Annmarie Hosie; Melanie Lovell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655