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

Mini oral session - Developmental therapeutics

520MO - Using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT): Results from a global stakeholder survey and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum

Date

20 Sep 2021

Session

Mini oral session - Developmental therapeutics

Presenters

Julia Lai-Kwon

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2021) 32 (suppl_5): S583-S620. 10.1016/annonc/annonc699

Authors

J.E. Lai-Kwon1, A. Vanderbeek2, A. Minchom1, C. Yap2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Drug Development Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital, SM25PT - Sutton/GB
  • 2 Clinical Trials And Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, SM25NG - Sutton/GB
More

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

Abstract 520MO

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in DFOT. However, PRO use is limited and the reasons for this are unknown. We conducted a global online stakeholder survey and a survey at the NCRI Consumer Forum to understand attitudes to PROs in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders and regulators of DFOT from hospitals, academia or industry was distributed via professional bodies. Questions examined prior experience of using PROs, benefits/ barriers to PRO use and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes with patients and carers.

Results

Global survey: 112 responses from 15 September-30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%). Most trialists had no prior experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%) or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (79/112, 70.5%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. 27 (48.2%) were willing to spend ≤15 minutes/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.4%) preferred to complete PROs online. There was broad support for using PROs to inform selection of tolerable doses (table). Table: 520MO

Strongly agreed/ agreed (n, %)
Global survey (n=112) NCRI Consumer forum survey (n=57)
PROs should be communicated in real-time to investigators 62 (55.3%) 54 (94.7%)
PROs on adverse events (in conjunction with clinician- assessed CTCAE data) should be used to inform dose escalation decisions 61 (54.5%) 57 (100%)
PROs on adverse events (in conjunction with clinician- assessed CTCAE data) should be used to inform the maximum tolerated dose 63 (56.3%) Not assessed
PROs on adverse events (in conjunction with clinician- assessed CTCAE data) should be used to inform the recommended phase 2 dose 76 (67.9%) 54 (94.7%)

Conclusions

Trialists and consumers reported minimal prior experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use in defining tolerable doses. Collaboration between key stakeholders and consumers should inform the research agenda in this area. Guidelines are needed to standardise PRO selection, analysis and reporting in DFOT.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

All authors are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The authors also acknowledge funding from Cancer Research UK and the Experimental Cancer Centre Initiative.

Disclosure

A. Minchom: Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Merck; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: FARON; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Novartis; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Bayer; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Janssen. C. Yap: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: FARON; Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Celgene. All other 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