Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Lunch and Poster Display session

276P - Pitfalls and consequences of insufficient data recording of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in metastatic breast cancer trials

Date

16 May 2024

Session

Lunch and Poster Display session

Presenters

Can Ünal

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 9 (suppl_4): 1-12. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop103324

Authors

C.M. Ünal1, A. Liberman2, K. Nink2

Author affiliations

  • 1 IQWIG, Cologne/DE
  • 2 IQWiG - Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Köln/DE

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 276P

Background

PRO measures are important complementary endpoints in health technology assessments. However, methodological flaws of PRO documentation and analysis in clinical trials have consequences on their interpretation and subsequent benefit claims.

Methods

German benefit assessments of abemaciclib (studies MONARCH-2, MONARCH-3 and MONARCH plus), sacituzumab govitecan (studies TROPiCS-02 and ASCENT) and trastuzumab deruxtecan (studies DESTINY-Breast02, DESTINY-Breast03 and DESTINY-Breast04) from 2021 to 2023 were used as examples to illustrate the problems of shortened observation periods for PROs (i.e. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ] – Cancer 30 and – Breast Cancer 23) in oncological trials.

Results

The pharmaceutical companies presented time-to-event analyses of PRO measures (deterioration by 10 points either with or without subsequent improvement). Statistically significant differences for all analyzed compounds were reported for several EORTC QLQ scales. However, PROs were not recorded beyond end of treatment resulting in a systematically shortened median observation period compared with overall survival, ranging from 25% to 78% in the intervention arm and from 18% to 58% in the comparator arm. Furthermore, the median observation period for PROs was markedly shorter in the comparator arm compared to the intervention arm, ranging from 35% to 73%. Conclusions can therefore only be drawn for the time until end of treatment in the shorter observed arm. Also, due to the shorter observation period, deterioration without subsequent improvement was potentially easier to achieve in the control group.

Conclusions

Shortened and different observation periods between treatment arms limit interpretability of study results and provide insufficient data on long-term PRO measures. Trial sponsors should collect PRO data ideally until end of the study and regardless of possible treatment discontinuation. This enables to adequately reflect the patients‘ perspective when starting a treatment, because drug discontinuation and eventual drug switches are part of a treatment strategy.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.