Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37975967›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2023

Use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data to complement exposure-response analysis in early clinical cancer drug development.

Huiming Xia, Brian P Booth, Yaning Wang, Chunling Fan, Vishal Bhatnagar, Paul Kluetz, Jeanne Fourie Zirkelbach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Huiming XiaBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, USA.
Brian P BoothDivision of Cancer Pharmacology I, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Office of Translational Sciences, CDER, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA.
Yaning WangGreaterna Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Chunling FanAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Vishal BhatnagarOncology Center of Excellence, Office of New Drugs, CDER, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA.
Paul KluetzOncology Center of Excellence, Office of New Drugs, CDER, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA.
Jeanne Fourie ZirkelbachDivision of Cancer Pharmacology II, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Office of Translational Sciences, CDER, US Food and Drug Administration, FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20903, USA. Jeanne.fouriezirkelbach@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID 0000-0003-3915-8668
United States Food and Drug Administration · USAstraZeneca (United States) · USBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis proof-of-concept retrospective case study investigated whether patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments, designed to capture symptomatic adverse event data, could identity a known exposure-response (ER) relationship for safety characterized in an original FDA analysis of an approved anti-cancer agent. PRO instruments have been designed to uniquely quantify the tolerability aspects of exposure-associated symptomatic adverse events. We explored whether standard ER analyses of clinician-reported safety data for symptomatic adverse events could be complemented by ER analysis using PRO data that capture and quantify the tolerability aspects of these same symptomatic adverse events.

methodsExposure-associated adverse event data for diarrhea were analyzed in parallel in 120 patients enrolled in a clinical trial using physician reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and patient-reported symptomatic adverse event data captured by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) instrument. Comparative ER analyses of diarrhea were conducted using the same dataset. Results from the CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE ER analyses were assessed for consistency with the ER relationship for diarrhea established in the original NDA using a 750-patient dataset. The analysis was limited to the 120-patient subset with parallel CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE assessments.

resultsWithin the same 120-patient dataset, ER analysis using dense, longitudinal PRO-CTCAE-derived data was sensitive to identify the known ER relationship for diarrhea, whereas the standard CTCAE based ER analysis was not.

conclusionsER analysis using PRO assessed symptomatic adverse event data may be a sensitive tool to complement traditional ER analysis. Improved identification of relationships for safety, by including quantification of the tolerability aspect of symptomatic adverse events using PRO instruments, may be useful to improve the sensitivity of exposure response analysis to support early clinical trial dosage optimization strategies, where decision making occurs within limited small patient datasets.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsComplement System ProteinsDiarrheaDrug DevelopmentHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresRetrospective StudiesSelf ReportUnited StatesAntineoplastic AgentsComplement System ProteinsAdverse eventsDosage optimizationDrug developmentExposure–response analysisPatient reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37975967
PMCPMC10656371
OpenAlexW4388769682

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.