BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly included in submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Open-label designs are frequent in cancer trials. Between-arm differences in PRO missingness may affect results. We sought to compare PRO completion rates between study arms in randomized open-label and double-blind cancer trials. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials for oncology and malignant hematology products submitted to the FDA in fiscal years 2007-2017 were identified using internal FDA databases. Applicant study reports were reviewed to assess PRO use and reporting of completion rates. Completion rates were collected for each PRO and compared between arms. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Ninety-six trials for anticancer products from 2007 to 2017 contained PROs. Fifty-one (53.1%) were randomized, controlled trials with useable information on PRO completion. The median completion rate for investigational arms was 89.7% (range = 33.7-100.0%) and 88.2% (range = 11.0-100.0%) for control arms. At six months, seven double-blind trials had gaps of at least 10% in at least one PRO between arms; in four trials, these gaps favored the control arm (median difference = 11.5%, range = 10.0-17.0%). For open-label trials, four trials had such gaps, all of which favored the investigational arm (median difference = 28.5%, range = 10.0-69.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that provided interpretable PRO completion information, completion rates were high. Most trials had comparable completion rates between arms. However, when large between-arm completion rate differences existed, differences favoring the experimental arm were more common in open-label trials compared with double-blind trials. Procedures must be put in place to improve reporting of PRO completion and reduce missingness, particularly in open-label trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly included in submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Open-label designs are frequent in cancer trials. Between-arm differences in PRO missingness may affect results. We sought to compare PRO completion rates between study arms in randomized open-label and double-blind cancer trials. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials for oncology and malignant hematology products submitted to the FDA in fiscal years 2007-2017 were identified using internal FDA databases. Applicant study reports were reviewed to assess PRO use and reporting of completion rates. Completion rates were collected for each PRO and compared between arms. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Ninety-six trials for anticancer products from 2007 to 2017 contained PROs. Fifty-one (53.1%) were randomized, controlled trials with useable information on PRO completion. The median completion rate for investigational arms was 89.7% (range = 33.7-100.0%) and 88.2% (range = 11.0-100.0%) for control arms. At six months, seven double-blind trials had gaps of at least 10% in at least one PRO between arms; in four trials, these gaps favored the control arm (median difference = 11.5%, range = 10.0-17.0%). For open-label trials, four trials had such gaps, all of which favored the investigational arm (median difference = 28.5%, range = 10.0-69.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that provided interpretable PRO completion information, completion rates were high. Most trials had comparable completion rates between arms. However, when large between-arm completion rate differences existed, differences favoring the experimental arm were more common in open-label trials compared with double-blind trials. Procedures must be put in place to improve reporting of PRO completion and reduce missingness, particularly in open-label trials.
Authors: Hannah L Rush; Laura Murphy; Alicia K Morgans; Noel W Clarke; Adrian D Cook; Gerhardt Attard; Archie Macnair; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker; J Martin Russell; Silke Gillessen; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Christopher D Brawley; Cheryl Pugh; Jacob S Tanguay; Robert J Jones; John Wagstaff; Sarah Rudman; Joe M O'Sullivan; Joanna Gale; Alison Birtle; Andrew Protheroe; Emma Gray; Carla Perna; Shaun Tolan; Neil McPhail; Zaf I Malik; Salil Vengalil; David Fackrell; Peter Hoskin; Matthew R Sydes; Simon Chowdhury; Duncan C Gilbert; Mahesh K B Parmar; Nicholas D James; Ruth E Langley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Martin Reck; Thomas Wehler; Francisco Orlandi; Naoyuki Nogami; Carlo Barone; Denis Moro-Sibilot; Mikhail Shtivelband; Jose Luis González Larriba; Jeffrey Rothenstein; Martin Früh; Wei Yu; Yu Deng; Shelley Coleman; Geetha Shankar; Hina Patel; Claudia Kelsch; Anthony Lee; Elisabeth Piault; Mark A Socinski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David N Bernstein; Aditya V Karhade; Christopher M Bono; Joseph H Schwab; Mitchel B Harris; Daniel G Tobert Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2022-08-04
Authors: Maria Manuel Teixeira; Fábio Cardoso Borges; Paula Sousa Ferreira; João Rocha; Bruno Sepodes; Carla Torre Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-12
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: Houssein Safa; Monica Tamil; Philippe E Spiess; Brandon Manley; Julio Pow-Sang; Scott M Gilbert; Firas Safa; Brian D Gonzalez; Laura B Oswald; Adele Semaan; Adi Diab; Jad Chahoud Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Guillaume Mouillet; Fabio Efficace; Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin; Emilie Charton; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Francesco Sparano; Amélie Anota Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 4.452