Document resource
Cancer clinical trials form the foundation for the approval and use of new anticancer therapies. Alongside traditional endpoints such as survival and tumour response, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are now a cornerstone of oncology trials and are increasingly expected by regulators.1 By capturing symptoms and functional health directly from patients, PROs provide essential information for patient-focused drug development and shared decision-making.At the same time, research examining regulatory approvals shows that PRO use in trials does not consistently translate into post-approval product information. An analysis of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals between 2016 and 2020 found PRO label statements in around 50% of approved drugs overall, but in just 2 of 62 (3%) oncology approvals,2 potentially due to concerns about PRO quality or study integration.3 Similar patterns have been observed in Europe, where only 17.8%4 to 20%5 of approved drugs had PRO label claims in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Together, these studies illustrate a persistent disconnect between the generation and regulatory review of PRO data and their formal incorporation into product labelling.What remains less well understood is how PRO data are communicated beyond regulatory assessment after obtaining market access. Regulatory labels represent only one element of the post-approval information landscape, alongside sponsor-controlled and publicly accessible materials directed at clinicians and patients, and, so far, there has been limited systematic evidence on whether and how PRO findings are conveyed through these channels. Against this background, Shahraz et al6 examined PRO representation in post-approval communications for oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA between 2014 and 2024, analysing 128 trials in breast, gastrointestinal and non-small cell lung cancers.For each drug, the authors assessed the presence of PRO information in the regulatory label and reviewed publicly accessible post-approval communications, including sponsor-controlled materials (healthcare professional-facing and patient-facing websites), as well as external professional and patient advocacy content. They further evaluated the strength of PRO messaging, classifying communications as low, medium or high depending on the presence of PRO data and the representation in one or more communication channels or the product label.PRO content appeared in regulatory labels for only 10 of 64 drug-indication approvals. In sponsor-controlled channels, PRO findings were reported for seven approvals in professional-facing materials and for only two in patient-facing communications. Communication via professional societies or patient advocacy websites was somewhat more common. When PRO information was present in sponsor-controlled channels, messaging strength was predominantly low; some products achieved medium strength, and none met criteria for high PRO messaging strength. Although such ratings inevitably depend on underlying criteria, they still provide insight into how PRO data are communicated after approval. As the authors note, the analysis was limited to primarily Western-based information sources and did not include peer-reviewed publications, health technology assessment submissions or conference presentations, which may contain more detailed PRO reporting but are less accessible to patients.Notably, the presence of PRO label claims was not associated with more frequent or stronger post-approval PRO communication. In contrast, many public-facing PRO messages were identified for products that did not include PRO information in their labels.Importantly, the results do not imply that PRO data are absent from scientific discourse or clinical decision-making. PRO findings are increasingly reported in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and clinicians may actively seek out this information. However, their limited presence in sponsor-controlled and publicly accessible materials suggests that these data are not routinely integrated into an information environment that may shape how cancer drugs are discussed, prescribed and understood in everyday practice.Taken together, the findings by Shahraz et al demonstrate an important paradox in contemporary oncology. PROs are now routinely collected in clinical trials, often with substantial effort by investigators and patients, yet their visibility in post-approval communications remains limited. PRO data are outcomes that matter to patients, including symptom burden and daily functioning, but these are rarely visible in materials intended to inform treatment choices. Ensuring that patients who contribute PRO data can later access meaningful and appropriately contextualised information derived from these data is an important consideration, both from a drug-development and an ethical standpoint.Another key contribution of this study is that it draws attention to the absence of well-defined standards for post-approval communication of PRO data. It remains unclear how PRO findings should be communicated in sponsor-controlled and public-facing materials, how such communications should relate to regulatory label claims, and how transparency and balance can be ensured. The review offers a foundation for broader discussions on standards for post-approval PRO communication in oncology. These discussions should involve regulators, sponsors, clinicians and researchers, and, importantly, patients. Clarifying expectations and needs around PRO communication may help ensure that the growing investment in PRO data collection translates into meaningful value for oncology and patient care.