Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881661›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

Patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer FDA drug labels and review documents.

Kyungwan Hong, Kayleigh R Majercak, Ester Villalonga-Olives, Eleanor M Perfetto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kyungwan HongDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, 220 Arch Street, 12th Floor, Room: 01-328, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. hong.kyungwan@umaryland.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8898-0186
Kayleigh R MajercakDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, 220 Arch Street, 12th Floor, Room: 01-328, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Ester Villalonga-OlivesDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, 220 Arch Street, 12th Floor, Room: 01-328, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Eleanor M PerfettoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, 220 Arch Street, 12th Floor, Room: 01-328, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID33881661
PMCPMC8060367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.