Dataset Information

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs.

ABSTRACT: In oncology, next generation sequencing and comprehensive genomic profiling have enabled the detailed classification of tumors using molecular biology. However, it is unrealistic to conduct phase I-III trials according to each sub-population based on patient molecular subtypes. Common protocols that assess the combination of several molecular markers and their targeted therapies by means of multiple sub-studies are required. These protocols are called "master protocols," and are drawing attention as a next-generation clinical trial design. Recently, several reviews of clinical trials based on the master protocol design have been published, but their definitions of these such trials, including basket, umbrella, and platform trials, were not consistent. Concurrently, the acceleration of the development of new statistical designs for master protocol trials has been underway. This article provides an overview of recent reviews for master protocols, including their statistical design methodologies in Oncology. We also introduce several examples of previous and on-going master protocol trials along with their classifications by some recent studies.

SUBMITTER: Hirakawa A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6120722 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs.

Hirakawa Akihiro A Asano Junichi J Sato Hiroyuki H Teramukai Satoshi S

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20180824

In oncology, next generation sequencing and comprehensive genomic profiling have enabled the detailed classification of tumors using molecular biology. However, it is unrealistic to conduct phase I-III trials according to each sub-population based on patient molecular subtypes. Common protocols that assess the combination of several molecular markers and their targeted therapies by means of multiple sub-studies are required. These protocols are called "master protocols," and are drawing attentio ...[more]

PMID: 30182068

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge of treatment assignment may affect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which is of concern in oncology, where open-label trials are common. This study measured the magnitude of open-label bias by comparing PROs for similar patient groups in oncology trials with different degrees of concealment.MethodsIndividual patient data from ipilimumab arms of 2 melanoma and docetaxel arms of 2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials were adjusted for differences using propensity score weighting. Patients were aware of treatment assignment in CA184-022 and CheckMate 057 (open-label) but not in MDX010-20 and VITAL (blinded). Overall survival (OS) and mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (melanoma) and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (NSCLC) scores were compared between open-label and blinded groups.ResultsAfter adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between blinded (melanoma, n = 125; NSCLC, n = 424) and open-label (melanoma, n = 69; NSCLC, n = 205) groups. Study discontinuation and PRO completion rates at week 12 and OS were similar. There was no clear direction in differences in change scores between groups. In the melanoma trials, role functioning (mean = -5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -15.4 to 5.0), global health status (mean = -1.3, 95% CI = -8.7 to 6.1), and pain (mean = 6.2 , 95% CI = -1.8 to 14.2) favored the blinded, whereas emotional functioning (mean = 2.2, 95% CI = -5.8 to 10.2) and diarrhea (mean = -8.3, 95% CI = -17.3 to 0.7) favored the open-label group. In the NSCLC trials, changes in dyspnea (mean = 5.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to 11.5) favored the blinded and changes in appetite (mean = -1.2, 95% CI = -8.1 to 5.7) favored the open-label group. None were clinically or statistically significant.ConclusionsThis study adds to the growing evidence demonstrating that concerns regarding open-label bias should not prohibit the interpretation of large and meaningful treatment effects on PROs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. METHODS:We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. RESULTS:We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months. CONCLUSIONS:We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

Dataset Information

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs.

Publications

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets