Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes in Drug Development in Genitourinary Cancers


Purpose of Review

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly utilized in cancer drug development, and are of particular importance in genitourinary cancers due to symptom burden, multiple treatment options with similar efficacy, and often prolonged duration of disease. Here we review current data and perspectives related to use of PROs in drug development for genitourinary cancers, including insights on the regulatory process for drug approval.

Recent Findings

The FDA is committed to incorporating PRO data into the regulatory process for development and approval of new cancer drugs, but challenges exist due to lack of standardization of PRO instrument choice and analytic approach, missing data, and difficulty isolating treatment effect from disease-related effects. We review guidance for standardization of PRO methodology that is nonetheless tailored to disease state and anticipated effects of treatment. PRO and efficacy data should be simultaneously analyzed and reported for best clinical practice. Multiple disease-specific PRO instruments exist for genitourinary cancers.


While clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies alike recognize the importance of PROs in cancer drug development, challenges remain regarding implementation of best practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.

    Cleary PD. Evolving concepts of patient-centered care and the assessment of patient care experiences: optimism and opposition. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016;41(4):675–96.

  2. 2.

    Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):397–400.

  3. 3.

    US Food, Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. US Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD; 2009. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf (

  4. 4.

    Lopez-Calderero I, Lopez-Fando L, Rios-Gonzalez E, Maisonobe P, Hernandez-Yuste E, Sarmiento-Jordan M. Impact of locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer on the quality of life. Actas Urol Esp. 2017;41(6):368–75.

  5. 5.

    Wilson KA, Dowling AJ, Abdolell M, Tannock IF. Perception of quality of life by patients, partners and treating physicians. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(9):1041–52.

  6. 6.

    Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW, Sit L, Shaw M, Lavene D, et al. Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1159–64.

  7. 7.

    Laugsand EA, Sprangers MA, Bjordal K, Skorpen F, Kaasa S, Klepstad P. Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:104.

  8. 8.

    Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, Barz A, Sit L, Fruscione M, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1624–32.

  9. 9.

    Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M, Hsieh YC, Beer TM. How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the quality-of-life questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(17):3485–90.

  10. 10.

    Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes - harnessing patients' voices to improve clinical care. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):105–8.

  11. 11.

    Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211.

  12. 12.

    • Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–65 This randomized controlled trial assigned 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors to usual care versus weekly remote PRO assessments using computers and clinical follow-up based on patients’ responses. They found better HRQOL, fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, longer time on chemotherapy, and better overall survival at 1 year in the intervention group.

  13. 13.

    • Denis F, Yossi S, Septans AL, Charron A, Voog E, Dupuis O, et al. Improving survival in patients treated for a lung cancer using self-evaluated symptoms reported through a web application. Am J Clin Oncol. 2017;40(5):464–9 This study compared survival in 98 patients with lung cancer, the control arm being retrospectively analyzed and the intervention arm prospectively recruited to fill out weekly PRO assessments to be processed by a web application, with clinical follow-up depending on patients’ responses. Overall survival was better in the intervention arm.

  14. 14.

    Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;3(9).

  15. 15.

    Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, Reeve BB, Castro KM, Rogak LJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(8):1051–9.

  16. 16.

    Benner C, Greenberg M, Shepard N, Meng MV, Rabow MW. The natural history of symptoms and distress in patients and families following cystectomy for treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2014;191(4):937–42.

  17. 17.

    Graham J, Gingerich J, Lambert P, Alamri A, Czaykowski P. Baseline Edmonton symptom assessment system and survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(4):e319–e23.

  18. 18.

    Harding G, Cella D, Robinson D Jr, Mahadevia PJ, Clark J, Revicki DA. Symptom burden among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC): content for a symptom index. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:34.

  19. 19.

    Henningsohn L, Wijkstrom H, Pedersen J, Ahlstrand C, Aus G, Bergmark K, et al. Time after surgery, symptoms and well-being in survivors of urinary bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2003;91(4):325–30.

  20. 20.

    Oechsle K, Hartmann M, Mehnert A, Oing C, Bokemeyer C, Vehling S. Symptom burden in long-term germ cell tumor survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(5):2243–50.

  21. 21.

    Rabow MW, Benner C, Shepard N, Meng MV. Concurrent urologic and palliative care after cystectomy for treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(6):267.e23–9.

  22. 22.

    Rutherford C, Costa DSJ, King MT, Smith DP, Patel MI. A conceptual framework for patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(10):3095–102.

  23. 23.

    Turini M, Redaelli A, Gramegna P, Radice D. Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(8):527–41.

  24. 24.

    Shrader-Bogen CL, Kjellberg JL, McPherson CP, Murray CL. Quality of life and treatment outcomes: prostate carcinoma patients’ perspectives after prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Cancer. 1997;79(10):1977–86.

  25. 25.

    Shevach J, Weiner A, Morgans AK. Quality of life-focused decision-making for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(10):57.

  26. 26.

    Adolfsson J. Health-related quality-of-life assessments in patients with advanced cancer of the prostate. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(4):241–7.

  27. 27.

    Anderson J. Quality of life aspects of treatment options for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2001;40(Suppl 2):24–30.

  28. 28.

    Litwin MS. Quality of life following definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer: potential impact of multiple therapies. Curr Opin Urol. 2003;13(2):153–6.

  29. 29.

    Bacon CG, Kawachi I. Quality-of-life differences among various populations of localized prostate cancer patients: 2001. Curr Urol Rep. 2002;3(3):239–43.

  30. 30.

    Eton DT, Lepore SJ. Prostate cancer and health-related quality of life: a review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2002;11(4):307–26.

  31. 31.

    • Morgans AK, Chen YH, Sweeney CJ, Jarrard DF, Plimack ER, Gartrell BA, et al. Quality of life during treatment with chemohormonal therapy: analysis of E3805 chemohormonal androgen ablation randomized trial in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1088–95 This study compared HRQOL between patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation with docetaxel versus androgen deprivation alone, and found that while the addition of docetaxel was associated with worse HRQOL at 3 months, HRQOL was better at 12 months for patients treated with docetaxel and both arms reported a similar minimally changed HRQOL over time.

  32. 32.

    Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, Ernst DS, Neville AJ, Moore MJ, et al. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(6):1756–64.

  33. 33.

    • Kluetz PG, O'Connor DJ, Soltys K. Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):e267–e74 This Policy Review summarizes how incorporation of the patient experience into regulatory decision making is of increasing interest to the regulatory and health policy community internationally, and presents perspectives from regulatory scientists from the U.S., Europe, and Canada on the use of PRO measures in the regulatory decision-making process.

  34. 34.

    Beitz J, Gnecco C, Justice R. Quality-of-life end points in cancer clinical trials: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1996;(20):7–9.

  35. 35.

    Rock EP, Kennedy DL, Furness MH, Pierce WF, Pazdur R, Burke LB. Patient-reported outcomes supporting anticancer product approvals. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(32):5094–9.

  36. 36.

    • European Medicines Agency. Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. London: European Medicines Agency, 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2016/04/WC500205159.pdf (accessed Oct 1, 2019). This document put forth by the European Medicines Agency covers and provides guidance for the use of PRO endpoints in oncology studies performed in Europe.

  37. 37.

    DeMuro C, Clark M, Doward L, Evans E, Mordin M, Gnanasakthy A. Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006-2010). Value Health. 2013;16(8):1150–5.

  38. 38.

    Speight J, Barendse SM. FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes. BMJ. 2010;340:c2921.

  39. 39.

    US Food, Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2012. https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/ucm20027187.htm (accessed Oct 1, 2019).

  40. 40.

    US Food and Drug Administration. The voice of the patient. A series of reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) patient-focused drug development initiative. Lung cancer. Public meeting: June 28, 2013. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2013. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM379698.pdf (

  41. 41.

    US Food and Drug Administration. The voice of the patient. A series of reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) patient-focused drug development initiative. Breast cancer. Public meeting: April 2, 2015. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2015. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM464932.pdf (

  42. 42.

    US Food, Drug Administration. Patient-focused drug development program. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2017. https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/OCE/ucm544143.htm (

  43. 43.

    Kluetz PG, Slagle A, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, Donoghue M, Kwitkowski VE, et al. Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(7):1553–8.

  44. 44.

    Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65.

  45. 45.

    • Kluetz PG, Chingos DT, Basch EM, Mitchell SA. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: measuring symptomatic adverse events with the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes cersion of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:67–73 This article reviews the FDA Office of Hematology and Oncology Products’ perspective on use of PROs in cancer trials submitted to the FDA, focusing on use of the PRO-CTCAE for assessment of symptomatic adverse events.

  46. 46.

    Kluetz PG, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, Donoghue M, Kwitkowski VE, Chen WH, et al. Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials - response. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(22):5618.

  47. 47.

    Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, Reeve BB, Smith ML, Coons SJ, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4249–55.

  48. 48.

    • Marandino L, De Luca E, Zichi C, Lombardi P, Reale ML, Pignataro D, et al. Quality-of-life assessment and reporting in prostate cancer: systematic review of phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs published vetween 2012 and 2018. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019. This systematic review of 72 primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer between 2012 and 2018 found that HRQOL data were lacking in 52.8% of publications, including not being reported in 30.6% of publications where HRQOL was explicitly listed as a study endpoint.

  49. 49.

    Chen RC, Chang P, Vetter RJ, Lukka H, Stokes WA, Sanda MG, et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in prostate cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(7).

  50. 50.

    Winstead-Fry P, Schultz A. Psychometric analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale in a rural sample. Cancer. 1997;79(12):2446–52.

  51. 51.

    Overcash J, Extermann M, Parr J, Perry J, Balducci L. Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24(6):591–6.

  52. 52.

    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.

  53. 53.

    Esper P, Hampton JN, Smith DC, Pienta KJ. Quality-of-life evaluation in patients receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1999;26(1):107–12.

  54. 54.

    Esper P, Mo F, Chodak G, Sinner M, Cella D, Pienta KJ. Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology. 1997;50(6):920–8.

  55. 55.

    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.

  56. 56.

    van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fossa SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S, et al. An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2418–24.

  57. 57.

    Tannock I, Gospodarowicz M, Meakin W, Panzarella T, Stewart L, Rider W. Treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer with low-dose prednisone: evaluation of pain and quality of life as pragmatic indices of response. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(5):590–7.

  58. 58.

    Sprangers MA, Cull A, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC study group on quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(4):287–95.

  59. 59.

    Schmidt S, Garin O, Pardo Y, Valderas JM, Alonso J, Rebollo P, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2169–81.

  60. 60.

    Rnic K, Linden W, Tudor I, Pullmer R, Vodermaier A. Measuring symptoms in localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of assessment instruments. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16(2):111–22.

  61. 61.

    Hamoen EH, De Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):69 e19–28.

  62. 62.

    Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Tomlinson G, Bezjak A, Trachtenberg J, et al. Construction of the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS): a multiattribute health state classification system for prostate cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):920–30.

  63. 63.

    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905.

  64. 64.

    Giesler RB, Miles BJ, Cowen ME, Kattan MW. Assessing quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: development of a new instrument for use in multiple settings. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(6):645–65.

  65. 65.

    Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Brook RH. The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Med Care. 1998;36(7):1002–12.

  66. 66.

    Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sanda MG. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010;76(5):1245–50.

  67. 67.

    Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C, Bangma C, Briganti A, Bill-Axelson A, et al. Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):460–7.

  68. 68.

    • Danna BJ, Metcalfe MJ, Wood EL, Shah JB. Assessing symptom burden in bladder cancer: an overview of bladder cancer specific health-related quality of life instruments. Bladder Cancer. 2016;2(3):329–40 This review summarizes the existing PRO instruments used in bladder cancer and divides them into three categories for use following non-muscle invasive bladder cancer treatments, following radical cystectomy, and for general use.

  69. 69.

    Bergerot CD, Bergerot PG, Philip EJ, Pal SK. Patient-reported outcome measures in metastatic urinary cancers. Euro Urol Focus. 2019. Epub ahead of print: march 8, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.02.020 .

  70. 70.

    Cella D, Yount S, Du H, Dhanda R, Gondek K, Langefeld K, et al. Development and validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-kidney symptom index (FKSI). J Support Oncol. 2006;4(4):191–9.

  71. 71.

    Rao D, Butt Z, Rosenbloom S, Robinson D Jr, Von Roenn J, Kuzel TM, et al. A comparison of the Renal Cell Carcinoma-Symptom Index (RCC-SI) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI). J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;38(2):291–8.

  72. 72.

    Rossi SH, Klatte T, Stewart GD. Quality of life outcomes in patients with localised renal cancer: a literature review. World J Urol. 2018;36(12):1961–72.

  73. 73.

    Hoyt MA, Cano SJ, Saigal CS, Stanton AL. Health-related quality of life in young men with testicular cancer: validation of the Cancer Assessment for Young Adults (CAYA). J Cancer Suriv. 2013;7(4):630–40.

  74. 74.

    Sztankay M, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Basso U, Bumbasirevic U, Efficace F, et al. International phase IV validation study of an EORTC quality of life questionnaire for testicular cancer patients: the EORTC QLQ-TC26. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1104.

  75. 75.

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HealthMeasures: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Available from: http://www.healthmeasures.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=147&Itemid=806 ().

  76. 76.

    Vickers AJ. Validation of patient-reported outcomes: a low bar. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(23):1990–2.

  77. 77.

    Alibhai SM, Timilshina N, Duff-Canning S, Breunis H, Tannock IF, Naglie G, et al. Effects of long-term androgen deprivation therapy on cognitive function over 36 months in men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(2):237–44.

  78. 78.

    Gonzalez BD, Jim HS, Booth-Jones M, Small BJ, Sutton SK, Lin HY, et al. Course and predictors of cognitive function in patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen-deprivation therapy: a controlled comparison. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(18):2021–7.

  79. 79.

    Nead KT, Gaskin G, Chester C, Swisher-McClure S, Leeper NJ, Shah NH. Association between androgen deprivation therapy and risk of dementia. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(1):49–55.

  80. 80.

    Joly F, Alibhai SM, Galica J, Park A, Yi QL, Wagner L, et al. Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on physical and cognitive function, as well as quality of life of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2443–7.

  81. 81.

    Gonzalez BD, Jim HS, Donovan KA, Small BJ, Sutton SK, Park J, et al. Course and moderators of hot flash interference during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a matched comparison. J Urol. 2015;194(3):690–5.

  82. 82.

    Ceylan Y, Gunlusoy B, Koskderelioglu A, Gedizlioglu M, Degirmenci T. The depressive effects of androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: a comparative study. Aging Male. 2019:1–7.

  83. 83.

    Nelson AM, Gonzalez BD, Jim HS, Cessna JM, Sutton SK, Small BJ, et al. Characteristics and predictors of fatigue among men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a controlled comparison. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(10):4159–66.

  84. 84.

    Bandara V, Capp A, Ahmed G, Arm J, Martin J. Assessment and predictors of fatigue in men with prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;63(5):683–90.

  85. 85.

    Gonzalez BD, Small BJ, Cases MG, Williams NL, Fishman MN, Jacobsen PB, et al. Sleep disturbance in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: the role of hot flashes and nocturia. Cancer. 2018;124(3):499–506.

  86. 86.

    Koskderelioglu A, Gedizlioglu M, Ceylan Y, Gunlusoy B, Kahyaoglu N. Quality of sleep in patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Neurol Sci. 2017;38(8):1445–51.

  87. 87.

    Drudge-Coates L, Oh WK, Tombal B, Delacruz A, Tomlinson B, Ripley AV, et al. Recognizing symptom burden in advanced prostate cancer: a global patient and caregiver survey. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(2):e411–9.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Alicia K. Morgans.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Risa L. Wong declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Alicia K. Morgans has received research support from Bayer; has collaborated on research with Sanofi and Seattle Genetics; and has received compensation from Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Seattle Genetics for service as a consultant.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Genitourinary Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, R.L., Morgans, A.K. Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes in Drug Development in Genitourinary Cancers. Curr Oncol Rep 22, 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-020-0890-3

Download citation


  • Patient reported outcomes
  • Quality of life
  • Drug development
  • Regulatory decision making
  • Genitourinary cancer
  • Prostate cancer