Systematic review of adoption, reporting and impact of health-related quality of life in phase III non-inferiority trials of systemic oncology treatments.

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) assessment and patient-reported outcomes appear to be crucial in the rationale and interpretation of non-inferiority (NI) trials. The aim of this study was to assess the inclusion of QoL among endpoints in phase III NI oncology trials and the relevance of QoL results in the reporting and interpretation of these studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

By PubMed search and hand-search of 11 selected journals, we identified phase III NI trials in adult patients affected by solid tumours, published between 2012 and 2021. Trials were classified according to 4 NI strategies: (1) different drugs; (2) alternative drug administration routes; (3) shorter treatment duration; (4) "deintensification" of treatment schedule. Three main endpoints were: (1) the proportion of publications including QoL among endpoints; (2) the proportion of primary publications reporting QoL results; (3) the proportion of trials with available QoL results actually favoring the experimental treatment out of trials declaring NI.

RESULTS

106 publications were eligible. QoL was included among endpoints in 59 studies (55.7%), and QoL results were available in 40 primary publications (37.7%). In the 73 trials testing the NI of different drugs, QoL was included in 43 trials (58.9%) and QoL results were present in 31 publications (42.5%). Among the 74 trials formally demonstrating NI, only 19 trials (25.7%) had QoL results actually supporting the experimental treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In many NI trials in oncology, assessment and reporting of QoL are deficient. Furthermore, most trials formally claiming NI cannot count on QoL results actually supporting the experimental arm.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; LM reports research grant from AstraZeneca and travel expenses from Janssen; FP reports honoraria from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, institutional funding for work in clinical trials/contracted research from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline and Merck; MDM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda for consultancy or participation to advisory boards and direct research funding from Tesaro/GlaxoSmithKline, institutional funding for work in clinical trials/contracted research from Beigene, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.