Dataset Information

Association between treatment toxicity and outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whether or not toxicity predicts clinical outcomes has long been a question regarding cancer treatments. While prior studies have focused on specific cancers, therapies, and toxicities, no comprehensive evidence exists on whether treatment toxicity predicts favorable outcomes.

Methods

We abstracted treatment toxicity and clinical outcome data from a sample of phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (n = 99 trials). We investigated whether treatments with relatively greater toxicity compared with their controls had relatively higher, lower, or equivocal rates of clinical efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Several toxicities were assessed (all grades, grades III/IV, cutaneous rash, gastrointestinal toxicity, and myelosuppression).

Results

Toxicity and efficacy were greater among treatments than controls (e.g. 3.5 instances of all-grade toxicity per patient in treatment arms versus 2.8 instances in controls, P < 0.001; mean PFS of 9.1 months across treatment arms versus 7.1 months across controls, P < 0.001; mean OS of 18.6 months across treatment arms versus 16.9 months across controls, P < 0.001). Across trials, greater relative treatment toxicity was strongly associated with greater PFS in treatments versus controls (P < 0.001), but not OS (P = 0.44). Although higher relative rates of myelosuppression and cutaneous rash among treatments were not associated with greater treatment efficacy, greater relative gastrointestinal toxicity among treatments was associated with greater relative PFS compared with controls (P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Across trials, treatments with relatively greater all-grade toxicity compared with controls are associated with relatively greater PFS but not OS.

SUBMITTER: Abola MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4207731 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between treatment toxicity and outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

Abola M V MV Prasad V V Jena A B AB

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20140905 11

<h4>Background</h4>Whether or not toxicity predicts clinical outcomes has long been a question regarding cancer treatments. While prior studies have focused on specific cancers, therapies, and toxicities, no comprehensive evidence exists on whether treatment toxicity predicts favorable outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We abstracted treatment toxicity and clinical outcome data from a sample of phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (n = 99 trials). We investigated whether treatments with relativel ...[more]

PMID: 25193993

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFor many types of epithelial malignant neoplasms that are treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT), treatment prolongation and interruptions have an adverse effect on outcomes.ObjectiveTo analyze the association between RT duration and outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer who were treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT).Design, setting, and participantsThis study was an unplanned, post hoc secondary analysis of 3 prospective, multi-institutional phase 3 randomized clinical trials (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 8501, RTOG 9405, and RTOG 0436) of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored NRG Oncology (formerly the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, RTOG, and Gynecologic Oncology Group). Enrolled patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer underwent definitive CRT in the trials between 1986 and 2013, with follow-up occurring through 2014. Data analyses were conducted between March 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresTreatment groups in the trials used standard-dose RT (50 Gy) and concurrent chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes were local-regional failure (LRF), distant failure, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Multivariable models were used to examine the associations between these outcomes and both RT duration and interruptions. Radiotherapy duration was analyzed as a dichotomized variable using an X-Tile software to choose a cut point and its median value as a cut point, as well as a continuous variable.ResultsThe analysis included 509 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [57-70] years; 418 males [82%]; and 376 White individuals [74%]). The median (IQR) follow-up was 4.01 (2.93-4.92) years for surviving patients. The median cut point of RT duration was 39 days or less in 271 patients (53%) vs more than 39 days in 238 patients (47%), and the X-Tile software cut point was 45 days or less in 446 patients (88%) vs more than 45 days in 63 patients (12%). Radiotherapy interruptions occurred in 207 patients (41%). Female (vs male) sex and other (vs White) race and ethnicity were associated with longer RT duration and RT interruptions. In the multivariable models, RT duration longer than 45 days was associated with inferior DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .04). The HR for OS was 1.33, but the results were not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.99-1.77; P = .05). Radiotherapy duration longer than 39 days (vs ≤39 days) was associated with a higher risk of LRF (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.65; P = .01). As a continuous variable, RT duration (per 1 week increase) was associated with DFS failure (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; P = .03). The HR for LRF 1.13, but the result was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.99-1.28; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study indicated that in patients with esophageal cancer receiving definitive CRT, prolonged RT duration was associated with inferior outcomes; female patients and those with other (vs White) race and ethnicity were more likely to have longer RT duration and experience RT interruptions. Radiotherapy interruptions should be minimized to optimize outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Cancer Institute Moonshot research initiative calls for improvements in the analysis and reporting of treatment toxicity to advise key stakeholders on treatment tolerability and inform regulatory and clinical decision making. This study illustrates alternative approaches to toxicity evaluation using the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 clinical trial as an example.MethodsNational Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 was a neoadjuvant chemoradiation trial in stage II-III rectal cancer patients. A 2 x 2 factorial design was used to evaluate whether the addition of oxaliplatin (Oxa) to 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine (Cape) with radiation therapy improved local-regional tumor control. The toxicity index (TI), which accounts for the frequency and severity of toxicities, was compared across treatments using multivariable probabilistic index models, where Pr A < B indicates the probability that higher values of TI were observed for A when compared with B. Baseline age, sex, performance status, body mass index, surgery type, and stage were evaluated as independent risk factors.ResultsA total of 4560 toxicities from 1558 patients were analyzed. Results from adjusted probabilistic index models indicate that oxaliplatin-containing regimens had statistically significant (P < .001) probability (Pr) for higher TI compared with regimens without oxaliplatin (Pr 5FU < 5FU + Oxa = 0.619, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.560 to 0.674; Pr 5FU < Cape + Oxa = 0.627, 95% CI = 0.568 to 0.682; Pr Cape < 5FU + Oxa = 0.587, 95% 0.527 to 0.644; and Pr Cape < Cape + Oxa = 0.596, 95% 0.536 to 0.653). When compared with other existing toxicity analysis methods, TI provided greater power to detect differences between treatments.ConclusionsThis article uses standard data collected in a cancer clinical trial to introduce descriptive and analytic methods that account for the additional burden of multiple toxicities. These methods may provide a more accurate description of a patient's treatment experience that could lead to individualized dosing for better toxicity control. Future research will evaluate the generalizability of these findings in trials with similar drugs.

Dataset Information

Association between treatment toxicity and outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Association between treatment toxicity and outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets