Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe Food and Drug Administration recently issued guidance on conducting qualitative research to support patient-focused drug development. In prior FDA submissions, qualitative data has been critical to demonstrate the content validity of and meaningfulness of change in quantitative trial endpoints. Qualitative patient interviews embedded within neuro-oncology trials can supplement traditional quantitative measures by providing nuanced information on patients’ treatment priorities, benefit/risk assessments, and quality of life. METHODSWe interviewed people with neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) in stage one of the brigatinib arm of a multicenter, phase II, adaptive platform-basket trial for progressive NF2-related tumors (NCT04374305). Transcripts were coded by two analysts using a hybrid inductive/deductive framework; cross-cutting themes were generated using the Framework Method. RESULTS16/20 trial enrollees participated in interviews May 2021-March 2022. The radiographic response rate (volume shrinkage ≥20% from baseline) at 6 months for target and non-target tumors was 5% and 22%, respectively. However, most participants rated their change in overall status as minimally (10/16) or much (3/16) improved. Several participants acknowledged their tumor size had not changed significantly but felt tumor stability was an improvement over previously accelerated growth rates; this importantly allowed them to avoid or postpone future surgery. Participants also valued prevention of symptomatic decline, minimal impact of side effects on social roles and activities, the convenience of oral medication, and the sense of hope and agency gained from participating in a trial. CONCLUSIONSVirtual, in-depth qualitative interviews were feasible across multiple sites and provided unique information on NF2 patients’ conceptualization of clinical benefit. Qualitative interviews embedded within neuro-oncology trials can reveal 1) whether trial design and choice of outcome measures align with patient priorities; 2) whether and how new treatments improve patients’ quality of life; and 3) what degree of change in quantitative measures such as radiographic progression are clinically meaningful.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call