Abernethy, Amy P.

PURPOSE This pilot study examined the ability to operationalize the collection of real-world data to explore the potential use of real-world end points extracted from data from diverse health care data organizations and to assess how these relate to similar end points in clinical trials for immunotherapy-treated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Researchers from six organizations followed a common protocol using data from administrative claims and electronic health records to assess real-world end points, including overall survival (rwOS), time to next treatment, time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), time to progression, and progression-free survival, among patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer treated with programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in real-world settings. Data sets included from 269 to 6,924 patients who were treated between January 2011 and October 2017. Results from contributors were anonymized. RESULTS Correlations between real-world intermediate end points (rwTTD and time to next treatment) and rwOS were moderate to high (range, 0.6 to 0.9). rwTTD was the most consistent end points as treatment detail was available in all data sets. rwOS at 1 year post–programmed death-ligand 1 initiation ranged from 40% to 57%. In addition, rwOS as assessed via electronic health records and claims data fell within the range of median OS values observed in relevant clinical trials. Data sources had been used extensively for research with ongoing data curation to assure accuracy and practical completeness before the initiation of this research. CONCLUSION These findings demonstrate that real-world end points are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision making. Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.

Abstract Objective The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. Materials and Methods Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. Results Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. Discussion Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. Conclusions Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.