Renal cell cancer (RCC) is a relatively uncommon malignancy, with 51,190 cases expected to be diagnosed in 2007. Localized disease is curable by surgery; however, locally advanced or metastatic disease is not curable in most cases and, until recently, had a limited response to drug treatment. Historically, biologic response modifiers or immunomodulating agents were tested in clinical trials based on observations that some cases of RCC can spontaneously regress. High-dose aldesleukin is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for advanced RCC; however, the drug is associated with a high frequency of severe adverse effects. Responses have been observed with low-dose aldesleukin and interferon alfa, but with little effect on overall survival. Sorafenib and sunitinib are novel therapies that target growth factor receptors known to be activated by the hypoxia-inducible factor and the Ras-Raf/MEK/ERK pathways. These pathways are important in the pathophysiology of RCC. Sorafenib and sunitinib have shown antitumor activity as first- and second-line therapy in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic RCC who have clear-cell histology. Although complete responses are not common, both drugs promote disease stabilization and increase progression-free survival. This information suggests that disease stabilization may be an important determinant for response in RCC and possibly other cancers. Sorafenib and sunitinib are generally well tolerated and are considered first- and second-line treatment options for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. In addition, sorafenib and sunitinib have shown promising results in initial clinical trials evaluating antitumor activity in patients who are refractory to other antiangiogenic therapy. The most common toxicities with both sorafenib and sunitinib are hand-foot syndrome, rash, fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea. Research is directed toward defining the optimal use of these new agents.

Background: The use of mobile devices in clinical research has advanced substantially in recent years due to the rapid pace of technology development. With an overall aim of informing the future use of mobile devices in interventional clinical research to measure primary outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the use of and clinical outcomes measured by mobile devices (mobile outcomes) in observational and interventional clinical research. Method: We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles on clinical research published between January 2010 and May 2016 in which mobile devices were used to measure study outcomes. We screened each publication for specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and qualitatively summarized the use of mobile outcome assessments in clinical research, including the type and design of the study, therapeutic focus, type of mobile device(s) used, and specific mobile outcomes reported. Results: The search retrieved 2,530 potential articles of interest. After screening, 88 publications remained. Twenty-five percent of the publications (n = 22) described mobile outcomes used in interventional research, and the rest (n = 66) described observational clinical research. Thirteen therapeutic areas were represented. Five categories of mobile devices were identified: (1) inertial sensors, (2) biosensors, (3) pressure sensors and walkways, (4) medication adherence monitors, and (5) location monitors; inertial sensors/accelerometers were most common (reported in 86% of the publications). Among the variety of mobile outcomes, various assessments of physical activity were most common (reported in 74% of the publications). Other mobile outcomes included assessments of sleep, mobility, and pill adherence, as well as biomarkers assessed using a mobile device, including cardiac measures, glucose, gastric reflux, respiratory measures, and intensity of head-related injury. Conclusion: Mobile devices are being widely used in clinical research to assess outcomes, although their use in interventional research to assess therapeutic effectiveness is limited. For mobile devices to be used more frequently in pivotal interventional research – such as trials informing regulatory decision-making – more focus should be placed on: (1) consolidating the evidence supporting the clinical meaningfulness of specific mobile outcomes, and (2) standardizing the use of mobile devices in clinical research to measure specific mobile outcomes (e.g., data capture frequencies, placement of device). To that aim, this manuscript offers a broad overview of the various mobile outcome assessments currently used in observational and interventional research, and categorizes and consolidates this information for researchers interested in using mobile devices to assess outcomes in interventional research.

Mobile technologies offer the potential to reduce the costs of conducting clinical trials by collecting high-quality information on health outcomes in real-world settings that are relevant to patients and clinicians. However, widespread use of mobile technologies in clinical trials has been impeded by their perceived challenges. To advance solutions to these challenges, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) has issued best practices and realistic approaches that clinical trial sponsors can now use. These include CTTI recommendations on technology selection; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; data management; protocol design and execution; and US Food and Drug Administration submission and inspection. The scientific principles underpinning the clinical trials enterprise continue to apply to studies using mobile technologies. These recommendations provide a framework for including mobile technologies in clinical trials that can lead to more efficient assessment of new therapies for patients.