Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2022 Oct 6;114(10):1323-1332.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac128.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials

Michael D Brundage  1 , Norah L Crossnohere  2 , Jennifer O'Donnell  1 , Samantha Cruz Rivera  3   4   5 , Roger Wilson  6 , Albert W Wu  7 , David Moher  8   9 , Derek Kyte  3   10 , Bryce B Reeve  11 , Alexandra Gilbert  12 , Ronald C Chen  13 , Melanie J Calvert  3   4   14   15   16 , Claire Snyder  7
Affiliations
Editorial

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials

Michael D Brundage et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Comment on

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al.; for the PRO Harmonization Group. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522-531. - PubMed
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials - draft guidance for industry. FDA-2020-D-2303. Rockville MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2021.
    1. Au H-J, Ringash J, Brundage M, et al.; for the NCIC CTG Quality of Life Committee. Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: the experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(2):119-128. - PubMed
    1. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(5):278-300. - PubMed
    1. Giesinger JM, Efficace F, Aaronson N, et al. Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: a systematic review value in. Value Health. 2021;24(4):585-591. - PubMed