Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

Abstract Objective To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. Design Document content analysis. Setting European Medicines Agency. Participants Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. Main outcome measures Whether written information on a product addressed patients’ commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). Results 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

[1]  B. Sepodes,et al.  A review of patient-reported outcomes used for regulatory approval of oncology medicinal products in the European Union between 2017 and 2020 , 2022, Frontiers in Medicine.

[2]  C. Wild,et al.  Twelve years of European cancer drug approval—a systematic investigation of the ‘magnitude of clinical benefit’ , 2021, ESMO open.

[3]  Yolande Lievens,et al.  The European Code of Cancer Practice. , 2021, Journal of cancer policy.

[4]  S. van der Linden,et al.  The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials , 2021, medRxiv.

[5]  E. Finkelstein,et al.  Hope, bias and survival expectations of advanced cancer patients: A cross‐sectional study , 2021, Psycho-oncology.

[6]  O. Hansen,et al.  Patients and family caregivers report high treatment expectations during palliative chemotherapy: a longitudinal prospective study , 2021, BMC Palliative Care.

[7]  Marcus Schmidt,et al.  Any progress in informed consenting for cancer treatment? Results from a cross sectional analysis at a comprehensive cancer center , 2021, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[8]  M. Honey,et al.  What information do patients want about their medicines? An exploration of the perspectives of general medicine inpatients , 2020, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  R. Bartsch,et al.  Expectations and perception of cancer treatment goals in previously untreated patients. The EXPECT trial , 2020, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[10]  H. Naci,et al.  Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States , 2020, The Milbank quarterly.

[11]  Amie C O'Donoghue,et al.  Patients' Understanding of Oncology Clinical Endpoints: Environmental Scan and Focus Groups. , 2020, The oncologist.

[12]  H. Uno,et al.  The effect of disclosing life expectancy information on patients' prognostic understanding: secondary outcomes from a multicenter randomized trial of a palliative chemotherapy educational intervention. , 2020, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[13]  Charles R. Thomas,et al.  Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumour clinical trials. , 2020, European journal of cancer.

[14]  H. Uno,et al.  Effectiveness of a Multimedia Educational Intervention to Improve Understanding of the Risks and Benefits of Palliative Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[15]  Sarah E. Rosenbaum,et al.  Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study , 2020, BMJ Open.

[16]  V. Prasad,et al.  Limitations in Clinical Trials Leading to Anticancer Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration. , 2020, JAMA internal medicine.

[17]  V. Prasad,et al.  FDA Acceptance of Surrogate End Points for Cancer Drug Approval: 1992-2019 , 2020, JAMA internal medicine.

[18]  E. Smets,et al.  Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods , 2020, Quality of Life Research.

[19]  Brian G. Southwell,et al.  Patients' understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: A literature review. , 2020, Patient education and counseling.

[20]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature. , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[21]  J. Sterne,et al.  Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis , 2019, BMJ.

[22]  Natalie S Blencowe,et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2019, BMJ.

[23]  R. Epstein,et al.  Beliefs About Advanced Cancer Curability in Older Patients, Their Caregivers, and Oncologists. , 2019, The oncologist.

[24]  V. Prasad,et al.  A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. , 2019, European journal of cancer.

[25]  B. Gyawali,et al.  Association between progression‐free survival and patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials , 2018, International journal of cancer.

[26]  D. Raynor Written information on medicines for patients: learning from the PIL , 2018, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.

[27]  L. Fallowfield,et al.  Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study , 2018, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[28]  Arnoud J Templeton,et al.  Magnitude of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  Alesha J. Smith,et al.  ‘What do patients want?’ Tailoring medicines information to meet patients' needs , 2017, Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP.

[30]  H. Naci,et al.  Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13 , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[31]  J. V. van Meerbeeck,et al.  Addressing the Palliative Setting in Advanced Lung Cancer Should Not Remain a Barrier: A Multicenter Study , 2017, Clinical lung cancer.

[32]  G. Rubin,et al.  People’s Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England , 2017, Drug Safety.

[33]  P. Knapp,et al.  How much information about the benefits of medicines is included in patient leaflets in the European Union? – A survey , 2017, The International journal of pharmacy practice.

[34]  D. Zuckerman,et al.  Quality of Life, Overall Survival, and Costs of Cancer Drugs Approved Based on Surrogate Endpoints , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[35]  Jelena Savović,et al.  Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies , 2016, PloS one.

[36]  L. Fallowfield,et al.  Therapeutic aims of drugs offering only progression-free survival are misunderstood by patients, and oncologists may be overly optimistic about likely benefits , 2016, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[37]  Vinay Prasad,et al.  Cancer Drugs Approved on the Basis of a Surrogate End Point and Subsequent Overall Survival: An Analysis of 5 Years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[38]  M. Krajnik,et al.  Understanding the purpose of treatment and expectations in patients with inoperable lung cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy , 2015, Contemporary oncology.

[39]  P. Knapp,et al.  Changes in Side Effect Risk Communication in Patient Information Leaflets over the Past Decade: Results of a Survey , 2015, Drug Safety.

[40]  N. Keating,et al.  Patient beliefs that chemotherapy may be curative and care received at the end of life among patients with metastatic lung and colorectal cancer , 2015, Cancer.

[41]  Sean Khozin,et al.  Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  D. Schwappach,et al.  Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients’ emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices , 2014, BMC Family Practice.

[43]  T. Pawlik,et al.  What are patients' expectations about the effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer? , 2014, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[44]  Roland Büchter,et al.  Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2014, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[45]  P. Aslani,et al.  Beyond needs and expectations: identifying the barriers and facilitators to written medicine information provision and use in Australia , 2014, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[46]  L. Traeger,et al.  Associations among prognostic understanding, quality of life, and mood in patients with advanced cancer , 2014, Cancer.

[47]  Angela Buchholz,et al.  Basing information on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the scientific evidence: a quality dimension of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[48]  Deb Feldman-Stewart,et al.  Providing information about options in patient decision aids , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[49]  David Moher,et al.  The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration , 2013, Systematic Reviews.

[50]  S. van Dulmen,et al.  Older cancer patients' information and communication needs: what they want is what they get? , 2013, Patient education and counseling.

[51]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  P. Knapp,et al.  It's for your benefit: exploring patients' opinions about the inclusion of textual and numerical benefit information in medicine leaflets , 2013, The International journal of pharmacy practice.

[53]  G. Doyle,et al.  Shaping medicinal product information: a before and after study exploring physicians’ perspectives on the summary of product characteristics , 2013, BMJ Open.

[54]  Cr Sridhar,et al.  Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics.

[55]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[56]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[57]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change. , 2010, American journal of public health.

[58]  A. Clavarino,et al.  Ranked importance of outcomes of first-line versus repeated chemotherapy among ovarian cancer patients , 2010, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[59]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Using a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms Two Randomized Trials , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[60]  P. Knapp,et al.  Adequacy of Patient Information on Adverse Effects , 2008, Drug safety.

[61]  Peter Knapp,et al.  The role and value of written information for patients about individual medicines: a systematic review , 2007, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[62]  William H Shrank,et al.  Educating patients about their medications: the potential and limitations of written drug information. , 2007, Health affairs.

[63]  P. Knapp,et al.  A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[64]  D. Berry,et al.  The benefits of providing benefit information: Examining the effectiveness of provision of simple benefit statements on people's judgements about a medicine , 2007 .

[65]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Effect of Content and Format of Prescription Drug Labels on Readability, Understanding, and Medication Use , 2007 .

[66]  N Waugh,et al.  A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[67]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[68]  Paul Heron,et al.  Assessing the quality of information to support people in making decisions about their health and healthcare , 2006 .

[69]  P. Craft,et al.  Knowledge of treatment intent among patients with advanced cancer: a longitudinal study. , 2005, European journal of cancer care.

[70]  Geoffrey Mitchell,et al.  Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[71]  J. Gray,et al.  What patients want to know about their medications. Focus group study of patient and clinician perspectives. , 2002, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[72]  Aart Hendriks,et al.  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. , 2000, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[73]  D Charnock,et al.  DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. , 1999, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[74]  A Coulter,et al.  Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? , 1999, BMJ.

[75]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials Coulter Angela Entwisde Vikki Gilbert David King's Fund 219pp £16.95 1-85717-2144-0 18571721440. , 1999, Nursing Standard.

[76]  S. Banbury,et al.  What do patients want to know: An empirical approach to explanation generation and validation , 1995 .