Advertisement

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Protocol Content and Reporting for Clinical Trials that Lead to the approval of frontline Immune Checkpoint Blockade Combination for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma - The Patients’ Voice or a Missed Opportunity

Published:December 10, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.12.002

      Highlights

      • Standardization and reporting of PROs endpoints must be improved.
      • The time delay between publication of the clinical results and PROs results creates a gap in the knowledge.
      • Our publication provides clinicians a comparative resource for combination ICB PROs endpoints in mRCC trials.

      Abstract

      Introduction

      Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a rapidly emerging field of oncology that has revolutionized the metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment. Four recent treatment regimens Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Cabozantinib, and Pembrolizumab-Lenvatinib—have demonstrated improved clinical endpoints compared to standard of care and are endorsed by NCCN (2021). However, data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients receiving these regimens are limited. We conducted a comparative assessment of the quality and standardization of PROs endpoints and data reported for these randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

      Patients and Methods

      We systematically identified all RCTs evaluating combination ICB for ccRCC. PROs-specific data were abstracted from the final version of 4 RCT protocols, as well as clinical and PROs specific manuscripts published between April 2018 and April 2021. We used 3 previously published guides standardizing PROs research to objectively score the data: (i) 24-point PROEAS; (ii) 12-point SPIRIT-PRO; and (iii) 14-point CONSORT-PRO.

      Results

      The CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, CheckMate 9ER, and CLEAR studies had PROEAS scores of 88% (21/24), 37% (9/24), 83% (20/24), and 16% (4/24), respectively, and SPIRIT-PRO scores of 50% (6/12), 75% (9/12), 66% (8/12), and 41% (5/12) respectively. The CONSORT-PRO scores were 86% (12/14) for CheckMate 214 and 43% (6/14) for CheckMate 9ER, but scores were not available for the CLEAR and KEYNOTE 426 studies because of a lack of sufficient data. The average SPIRIT-PRO score across the 4 RCTs was 58%, indicating a reasonable adoption of PROs research in data management and analysis. The CheckMate 214 trial had the longest follow-up and most comprehensive published PROs data.

      Conclusion

      Our analysis identified the limitations of current PROs data in combination ICB approved for mRCC. This analysis will enable clinicians to better interpret the current PROs results and emphasize the importance of better incorporation of PROs endpoints in future mRCC trial design.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hargadon K.M.
        • Johnson C.E.
        • Williams C.J.
        Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors.
        Int. Immunopharmacol. 2018; 62: 29-39https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2018.06.001
        • Riley R.S.
        • June C.H.
        • Langer R.
        • Mitchell M.J.
        Delivery technologies for cancer immunotherapy.
        Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019; 18: 175-196https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-018-0006-z
      1. Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in Previously Untreated Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (CheckMate 214) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 6, 2021. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749

      2. Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Combination With Axitinib Versus Sunitinib Monotherapy in Participants With Renal Cell Carcinoma (MK-3475-426/KEYNOTE-426) - Study Results - ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 6, 2021. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02853331

      3. A Study of Nivolumab Combined With Cabozantinib Compared to Sunitinib in Previously Untreated Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 6, 2021. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03141177

      4. Lenvatinib/Everolimus or Lenvatinib/Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Alone as Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed May 6, 2021. Available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02811861

      5. Motzer R.J., Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Þ, Jonasch E., et al. Continue NCCN Guidelines Panel Disclosures NCCN Guidelines Version 4.2021 Kidney Cancer.; 2021.

      6. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims | FDA. Accessed May 6, 2021. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims

        • LeBlanc T.W.
        • Abernethy A.P.
        Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care-hearing the patient voice at greater volume.
        Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017; 14: 763-772https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.153
        • Bottomley A.
        The Cancer Patient and Quality of Life.
        Oncologist. 2002; 7: 120-125https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.7-2-120
      7. The Lancet Oncology. Immunotherapy: hype and hope. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:845. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30317-6

      8. The Lancet Oncology. Calling time on the immunotherapy gold rush. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:981. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30521-1

        • Calvert M.J.
        • O'Connor D.J.
        • Basch E.M
        Harnessing the patient voice in real-world evidence: the essential role of patient-reported outcomes.
        Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019; 18: 731-732https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-019-00088-7
        • Calvert M.
        • Kyte D.
        • Mercieca-Bebber R.
        • Slade A.
        • Chan A.W.
        • King M.T.
        Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols the spirit-pro extension.
        JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2018; 319: 483-494https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21903
        • Calvert M.
        • Blazeby J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Revicki D.A.
        • Moher D.
        • Brundage M.D.
        Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.
        JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 309: 814-822https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.879
        • Coens C.
        • Pe M.
        • Dueck A.C.
        • et al.
        International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomized controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.
        Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: e83-e96https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30790-9
        • Safa H.
        • Tamil M.
        • Spiess P.E.
        • et al.
        Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: a Systematic Review.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020; 113: 532-542https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa174
        • Basch E.
        • Hershman D.
        • Gurtshaw C.
        • Schweizer A.P.
        • Krzyzanowska M.
        ASCO's quality care symposium and the evolving science of value-based care.
        Journal of Oncology Practice. 2020; 16: 113-114https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.20.00034
        • Bylicki O.
        • Gan H.K.
        • Joly F.
        • Maillet D.
        • You B.
        • Péron J.
        Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy.
        Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: 231-237https://doi.org/10.1093/ANNONC/MDU489
        • Kyte D.
        • Retzer A.
        • Ahmed K.
        • et al.
        Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials.
        J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019; 111: 1170-1178https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038
        • Pe M.
        • Dorme L.
        • Coens C.
        • et al.
        Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomized controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.
        Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: e459-e469https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30418-2
        • Motzer R.J.
        • Tannir N.M.
        • McDermott D.F.
        • et al.
        Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1277-1290https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1712126
        • Cella D.
        • Grünwald V.
        • Escudier B.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomized, phase 3 trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: 297-310https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30778-2
        • Motzer R.J.
        • Rini B.I.
        • McDermott D.F.
        • et al.
        Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: 1370-1385https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9
        • Motzer R.J.
        • Escudier B.
        • McDermott D.F.
        • et al.
        Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.
        J Immunother Cancer. 2020; 8: 891https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-000891
        • Albiges L.
        • Tannir N.M.
        • Burotto M.
        • et al.
        Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.
        ESMO Open. 2020; 5https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079
        • Rini B.I.
        • Plimack E.R.
        • Stus V.
        • et al.
        Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1116-1127https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1816714
        • Powles T.
        • Plimack E.R.
        • Soulières D.
        • et al.
        Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 1563-1573https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8
        • Choueiri T.K.
        • Powles T.
        • Burotto M.
        • et al.
        Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 829-841https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2026982
        • Motzer R.
        • Alekseev B.
        • Rha S.Y.
        • et al.
        Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 1289-1300https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2035716
        • Motzer R.J.
        • Porta C.
        • Alekseev B.
        • et al.
        Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) analysis from the phase 3 CLEAR trial of lenvatinib (LEN) plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) or everolimus (EVE) versus sunitinib (SUN) for patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).
        J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39: 4502https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.4502
        • Arciero V.
        • Delos Santos S.
        • Koshy L.
        • et al.
        Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- And European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: a Systematic Review.
        JAMA Network Open. 2021; 42033004https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33004
        • Schnipper L.E.
        • Davidson N.E.
        • Wollins D.S.
        • et al.
        Updating the American society of clinical oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 2925-2933https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518
      9. A Study of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Combination With Belzutifan (MK-6482) and Lenvatinib (MK-7902), or Pembrolizumab/Quavonlimab (MK-1308A) in Combination With Lenvatinib, Versus Pembrolizumab and Lenvatinib, for Treatment of Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (MK-6482-012) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04736706

        • Spreafico A.
        • Hansen A.
        • Abdul Razak A.
        The Future of Clinical Trial Design in Oncology.
        Cancer Discov. 2021; 11 (Available at:): 822-837
        • Calvert M.J.
        • O'Connor D.J.
        • Basch E.M
        Harnessing the patient voice in real-world evidence: the essential role of patient-reported outcomes.
        Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019; 18: 731-732https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-019-00088-7