Abstract
Overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for oncology drug approval, but measuring it requires long follow-up and is impractical in certain oncology settings. To expedite drug evaluation, radiographic endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) are commonly used as alternatives to OS. However, these measures do not always reflect meaningful survival benefits, limiting their reliability as surrogate endpoints for regulatory decisions. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including quality of life (QoL) measures, capture the patient’s perspective on efficacy and toxicity, may enhance prediction of OS when combined with radiographic endpoints.
We reviewed FDA oncology New Drug Registry from 2017 to 2023. Trials were included if they reported OS, at least one radiographic endpoint, and patient-reported QoL. We trained machine learning models to predict whether OS is improved in the trial, first using radiographic endpoints alone, and then adding QoL. Model performance was compared between these approaches.
Of 387 oncology trials screened, 89 met inclusion criteria. Among these, 57 (64%) showed OS benefit, 76 (85%) reported improvement in the radiographic measures, and 35 (39%) had QoL benefits. Incorporating PROs into the model improved the predictive, with a 20% relative increase in AUC-ROC, indicating substantially better discrimination between trials with and without OS benefit.
These findings suggest that incorporating PROs into traditional radiographic endpoints enhances prediction of OS benefit. A composite surrogate endpoint that combines radiographic and QoL measures may provide a more reliable and patient-centered framework for regulatory decision-making and help accelerate drug development.
Translational Relevance Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard for evaluating cancer therapies, but its reliance on long-term follow-up delays trial readouts and drug approvals. Commonly used alternatives, such as progression-free survival, provide radiographic signals of tumor progression, but they do not consistently correlate with OS, limiting their value as surrogate endpoints. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture quality of life and symptom burden directly from the patient’s perspective. In this study, we show that incorporating PROs with radiographic endpoints substantially enhances the prediction of OS benefits in clinical trials, with machine learning models demonstrating about 20% better predictive performance compared to using radiographic measures alone. These findings support a novel composite surrogate endpoint that integrates PROs with radiographic measures, providing more patient-centered framework for regulatory decision-making and potentially accelerating oncology drug development.
Competing Interest Statement
B.M reports personal fees from Novartis outside this submitted work. E.B. receives institutional research funding from the National Cancer Institute and from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and personal fees for scientific advising from Research Triangle Institute, Thyme Care, N-Power Medicine, Resilience Health, Canopy Care, Savor Health, and Navigating Cancer.
Funding Statement
H.Z. received funding support from Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at FDA oncology New Drug Registry.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest B.M reports personal fees from Novartis outside this submitted work. E.B. receives institutional research funding from the National Cancer Institute and from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and personal fees for scientific advising from Research Triangle Institute, Thyme Care, N-Power Medicine, Resilience Health, Canopy Care, Savor Health, and Navigating Cancer.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
