ArticleArchives of internal medicine research2022
A 15 Year Review (2006-2020) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) in United States Oncology Product Labeling and Trends in Sponsor Size and Oncology Experience.
Article in Archives of internal medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality of Life Endpoints in Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Trials: Systematic Review of Inclusion, Challenges, and Implications (2020-2024).Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of the needs and health-related quality of life domains relevant to people surviving cancer in Europe.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Pragmatic paradigm for patient-reported outcome measure selection in lymphoma clinical trials: a rapid review study.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Stick With Intravenous or Give Subcutaneous a Shot? Time and Other Considerations When Evaluating Cancer Drug Formulations.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Despite wide use of PRO tools in clinical development, resulting data is rarely incorporated into the US label. This study reviewed oncology product labels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2006 and 2020 to determine if the number of PRO included in labeling has meaningfully changed. Sponsors were assessed to identify demographic trends in achieving PRO label success. Methods: FDA-approved drugs were searched utilizing the Drugs@FDA database by month from January 2015 to December 2020 for novel drug and biologic approvals. Products approved between 2006-2014 were identified utilizing the Gnansakthy et al., 2012 and 2016 publications. Labels were reviewed for inclusion of PRO data in the label and product summary basis of approval (SBA). Sponsor size and experience were measured for each year of product approval. Results: 155 oncology products received initial approval between 2006-2020, of which only 7 contained PRO data in the label. More than half (53.5%) of products had PRO data described in the SBA. Over time, PRO information has increasingly been included in the product marketing application. Sponsors utilizing PRO data tend to be experienced in oncology development and larger in size. Conclusions: There has been a small increase in inclusion of PRO data in oncology product labeling over the past 15 years. Utilization and analysis of appropriate PRO tools and data remains a challenge to sponsors. Further collaboration with FDA is needed for the development of disease specific PRO tools that provide meaningful data to the targeted patient population.
Indexed as
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.