ReviewEClinicalMedicine2023
Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Pragmatic paradigm for patient-reported outcome measure selection in lymphoma clinical trials: a rapid review study.BMJ open · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- Patient reported outcomes in the FDA approved drugs for systemic rheumatic diseases (2013-2024).Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Review
- Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Improvements in the health-related quality-of-life benefit of cancer drugs approved in China, 2005-2020: an observational study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Analyses of quality of life in cancer drug trials - a review of measurements and analytical choices in post-reimbursement studies.BMC cancer · 2024Review
- Needs and Expectations of Long-Term Cancer Survivors: Multi-Centre Study Protocol.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- From the Formation of Conceptual Framework to Regulatory Decision-Making: Considerations for the Developments of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- 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 · 2023Article
- Fentanyl in cancer pain management: avoiding hasty judgments and discerning its potential benefits.Drugs in context · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.