PRO‑CTCAE in Oncology Drug Evaluation: Cross-Agency Review of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision-Making in the United States and Europe
Clicks: 2
ID: 328503
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
2 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #353 of 357 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 357 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Drug toxicity and tolerability are important considerations of benefit-risk assessment in oncology regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to systematically capture patients' experiences of treatment-related symptomatic toxicities. Despite increasing use of PRO-CTCAE in oncology trials, its role in regulatory and HTA decisions has been limited, as has specific guidance or standards about how these data should be collected and used. We conducted a targeted review of oncology drug submissions and assessment reports from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and HTA bodies to evaluate how PRO-CTCAE data were used in regulatory and HTA decision-making. PRO-CTCAE data were included in 2 FDA oncology drug labels. Across agencies, we found infrequent incorporation of PRO-CTCAE data into regulatory or HTA decisions, despite agencies acknowledging its potential value for supplementing safety data from patients' perspectives. We also identified recurring sponsor limitations (non‑transparent item selection, inadequate endpoint positioning, single‑arm/open‑label trial designs, and missing or inconsistently reported data) that restricted PRO‑CTCAE's use by regulators and HTA bodies. While regulators and HTA bodies recognize the value of PRO-CTCAE and have considered such data in submissions, there remains a limited role for PRO-CTCAE in such decisions resulting from methodological and implementation challenges. Harmonized, cross-agency guidance on PRO-CTCAE item selection, endpoint definition, analysis, and presentation may help support its consistent and meaningful use in future oncology submissions and regulatory and HTA decision-making.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7212246846
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ethan Basch, Matthew Reaney, Jessica Roydhouse, Bellinda L. King‐Kallimanis, Daneen Sekoni, Joanne Buzaglo, Montserrat Casamayor, Robert Caruano, Chieh-I Chen, Ruben G W Quek, Vera Mastey, James Harnett, Lei Chi |
| Journal | JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/jnci/djag322
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.