Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089618›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2023

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022.

Chenghao Ge, Kaiyuan Guo, Yi Li, Guanqiao Li, Hong Zhang, Jiaxuan Yang, Yang Liu, Chen Yin, Sen Liu, Songmei Xie and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. A weighted predictive modeling method for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-individual change for patient-reported outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Use of patient-reported outcome measures for oncology drugs receiving accelerated approval.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
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

11 authors.

Chenghao GeTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Kaiyuan GuoSchool of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yi LiTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Guanqiao LiVanke School of Public Health, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Hong ZhangCenter for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China.
Jiaxuan YangSchool of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yang LiuTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Chen YinTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Sen LiuTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Songmei XieCenter for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyuan ChenTsinghua Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs. Methods: The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents. Findings: Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements. Interpretation: This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding.

Indexed as

Novel oncology drugPatient-reported outcome

Identifiers

PMID37089618
PMCPMC10113764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.