ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021
Patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer FDA drug labels and review documents.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcomes from DESTINY-Breast04: trastuzumab deruxtecan versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low mBC.The oncologist · 2025Trial
- Pooled analysis of NeoCARH and NeoCART trials: patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving platinum-based or anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Trial
- Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to breast cancer drug approvals: are we making them count?Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Communicating clinical trial information about cancer drug products to patients and healthcare professionals: review of patient-reported outcome messaging.BMJ oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Capturing the patient experience in systemic lupus erythematosus: Are widely used measures fit-for-purpose and adherent to FDA PRO guidance recommendations?Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide valuable information about drug benefit-risk tradeoffs from the patient perspective and are particularly important to patients with breast cancer due to its symptoms and adverse events from breast cancer treatments. The United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) has acknowledged PROs as important approval endpoints used in clinical trials of cancer drugs. However, previous studies found that PROs are rarely mentioned in cancer drug labels, a widely used and trusted source of information about drugs. Our objectives were to compare PRO data reported in FDA labeling versus FDA medical review documents for breast cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between 2000 and 2019 to identify possible causes for PRO-data labeling exclusions.
methodsWe included new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) initially approved for breast cancer treatment by the FDA between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2019. Product labeling and FDA medical review documents were collected from the FDA-Approved Drugs database (Drugs@FDA). From these resources, details on PRO measures used in trials, design of trials using PRO measures, PRO-endpoint status, analytical methods, and FDA reviewer comments regarding PRO measurement were extracted.
resultsOf 633 FDA-approved drugs, 13 were indicated for breast cancer treatment; none of their prescribing information contained information about PROs. However, 11 of 13 (85%) included PRO measures and endpoint information in FDA medical review documents. PRO measures were used in 14 different clinical trials, and FDA reviewers' comments regarding PRO measurement were related to lack of meaningfulness and clinical significance, lack of content validity, and inadequate analytical methods.
conclusionsDespite the importance of PROs to patients with breast cancer, PRO measures were only described in FDA medical review documents of breast cancer drugs, but not in drug product labeling. Therefore, it appears that PRO data are often collected in breast cancer trials, but have not been methodologically acceptable to FDA reviewers. Collaborative efforts between the FDA and industry are warranted to increase the number of breast cancer drug applications with appropriate use of PRO measures and endpoints.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.