While regulators are open to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for drug approval, the oncology community reflexively prioritizes survival data. This cultural bias sees PROs as "softer" endpoints, hindering the approval of drugs based on how patients feel and function.
Related Insights
Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.
Don't wait until Phase 3 to think about commercialization. Biotech firms must embed secondary endpoints in Phase 2 trials that capture quality of life and patient journey insights. This data is critical for building a compelling value proposition that resonates with payers and secures market access.
While PCWG4 advocates for using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), it doesn't mandate specific analysis methods. This flexibility creates a risk where researchers can explore numerous permutations of the data post-hoc to find a result that supports their desired conclusion, whether positive or negative.
Traditional endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) incentivize continuous treatment. The NCI group proposes "treatment-free survival," a novel metric that quantifies time spent *off* therapy. This endpoint better captures the patient experience and rewards treatments that provide durable responses after a finite course.
To be effective, the patient's lived experience cannot remain a "soft narrative." It must be converted into hard data points—like reduced healthcare utilization for payers or influence on treatment pathways for clinicians—to become a decision-making tool they cannot ignore.
When treating elderly patients (e.g., age 80+) with metastatic breast cancer, clinicians may prioritize quality of life over marginal overall survival gains seen in clinical trials. This justifies using a better-tolerated CDK4/6 inhibitor like palbociclib, even though ribociclib has demonstrated a statistical survival benefit, especially when patients have comorbidities or a preference for fewer side effects.
The fastest, cheapest path to drug approval involves showing a small survival benefit in terminally ill patients. This economic reality disincentivizes the longer, more complex trials required for early-stage treatments that could offer a cure.
Biotech leaders must stop viewing commercialization as a post-approval task. The critical window is Phase 2 clinical trials. By embedding patient journey and quality of life insights into secondary endpoints, companies can build a compelling value proposition for payers and physicians. Waiting until Phase 3 is too late.
While depth of response strongly predicts survival for an individual patient, the FDA analysis concludes it cannot yet be used as a surrogate endpoint to replace overall survival in pivotal clinical trials. It serves as a measure of drug activity, similar to response rate, but is not sufficient for drug approval on its own.
The GLORA-IV trial is designed with a dual endpoint, evaluating both patient response rate and overall survival. This structure creates an alternative pathway for regulatory approval based on response rates, which can be assessed faster than survival, strategically de-risking the lengthy and expensive trial process.
