Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898479›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of innovative patient-centric early phase dose-finding trial designs.

Emily Alger, Mary Van Zyl, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Dave Chuter, Lizzie Dean, Anna Minchom, Christina Yap

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Emily AlgerClinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Mary Van ZylDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, London, UK.
Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Dave ChuterAdvocate Forum, NCRI - National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Lizzie DeanAdvocate Forum, NCRI - National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Anna MinchomDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, London, UK.
Christina YapClinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Christina.Yap@icr.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials.

methodsA virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development.

resultsParticipants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose.

conclusionsAmplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.

Indexed as

Dose-findingPatient engagementPatient-Reported OutcomesPhase ITrial design

Identifiers

PMID38898479
PMCPMC11186095

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.