Dataset Information

Imprecise Kidney Function Thresholds in Cancer Clinical Trials and the Potential for Harm.

ABSTRACT: Current guidance for evaluation of kidney function and drug dosing emphasize using measured or estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) rather than measured or estimated creatinine clearance or serum creatinine (Scr) alone. We assessed the definitions of kidney function thresholds for eligibility in cancer clinical trials. A random sample of active Phase I-III trials with cisplatin (n = 465) and studies in cancer with decreased kidney function (n = 74) were identified from clinicaltrials.gov. Among cisplatin trials, kidney function thresholds were defined by Scr alone or a composite of Scr or creatinine clearance in 46% (212/465) of studies. Only 2% (n = 11) used GFR. Among trials in participants with decreased kidney function, the proportion utilizing GFR (14%, 10/74) was modestly higher. Imprecise and logically inconsistent kidney function thresholds are in frequent use in clinical trials in cancer and may cause harm from either toxicity or impaired efficacy. We recommend the adoption and harmonization of recommended standards.

SUBMITTER: Wang E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6649787 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Imprecise Kidney Function Thresholds in Cancer Clinical Trials and the Potential for Harm.

Wang Edwin E Paulus Jessica K JK Hackenyos Douglas D Inker Lesley A LA Levey Andrew S AS Mathew Paul P

JNCI cancer spectrum 20181001 4

Current guidance for evaluation of kidney function and drug dosing emphasize using measured or estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) rather than measured or estimated creatinine clearance or serum creatinine (Scr) alone. We assessed the definitions of kidney function thresholds for eligibility in cancer clinical trials. A random sample of active Phase I-III trials with cisplatin (n = 465) and studies in cancer with decreased kidney function (n = 74) were identified from clinicaltrials.gov. ...[more]

PMID: 31360878

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:We reviewed the literature on adjuvant therapies for patients with high risk localized kidney cancer following surgical resection. In this analysis we merge 2 recently published prospective trials with conflicting results within the context of their respective designs. In addition, we spotlight upcoming trials that use novel immunotherapy based checkpoint inhibitors and have the potential to establish a new standard of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We searched PubMed® for English language articles published through January 2017 using the keywords "renal cell carcinoma," "kidney cancer," "immunotherapy," "targeted therapy" and "adjuvant therapy." ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for ongoing studies. Relevant data recently presented at major urology and medical oncology meetings are also included. RESULTS:Adjuvant therapies for high risk localized kidney cancer can be grouped into the categories of 1) traditional immunotherapy, 2) inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor and mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathways, 3) vaccines and antibody dependent cytotoxic agents, and 4) immune checkpoint inhibitors. Several trials of traditional immunotherapy, such as interferon-? and high dose interleukin-2, failed to demonstrate benefit as adjuvant treatment and were associated with significant adverse events. Vascular endothelial growth factor and mTOR inhibitors have less severe toxicity in metastatic disease and, therefore, are natural considerations for adjuvant trials. However, current data are conflicting. The ASSURE (Sunitinib Malate or Sorafenib Tosylate in Treating Patients with Kidney Cancer that was Removed by Surgery, NCT00326898) trial found no recurrence-free survival benefit of sorafenib or sunitinib over placebo, while S-TRAC (Clinical Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Sunitinib versus Placebo for the Treatment of Patients at High Risk of Recurrent Renal Cell Cancer, NCT00375674) revealed that 1 year of sunitinib improved recurrence-free survival by 1.2 years. Vaccine based treatments and antibody dependent cytotoxic agents have had mixed results. New trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors are planned, given the impressive efficacy and tolerability as second line agents in metastatic disease. Future adjuvant trials are likely to be guided by molecular signatures to treat patients most likely to benefit. CONCLUSIONS:Based on the available data, there appears to be no role for traditional immunotherapy as adjuvant treatment in patients with high risk localized kidney cancer following surgical resection. S-TRAC provides evidence that 1 year of adjuvant sunitinib in patients with higher risk locoregional disease increases the median time to recurrence. However, the data on overall survival are immature and adverse effects are common. Results from trials investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors are highly anticipated.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveTolvaptan is indicated for treatment of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) at risk of rapid progression. Participants aged 56-65 years constituted a small proportion of the Replicating Evidence of Preserved Renal Function: an Investigation of Tolvaptan Safety and Efficacy in ADPKD (REPRISE) trial population. We assessed effects of tolvaptan on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in participants aged >55 years.Study designThis was a pooled data analysis from 8 studies of tolvaptan or non-tolvaptan standard of care (SOC).Setting & participantsParticipants aged >55 years with ADPKD were included. Data on participants in >1 study were linked longitudinally for maximum follow-up duration, with matching for age, sex, eGFR, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage to minimize confounding.InterventionsTolvaptan or non-tolvaptan SOC.OutcomesTreatment effects on annualized eGFR decline were compared using mixed models with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline eGFR.ResultsIn the pooled studies, 230 tolvaptan-treated and 907 SOC participants were aged >55 years at baseline. Ninety-five participant pairs from each treatment group were matched, all in CKD G3 or G4, ranging from 56.0 to 65.0 years (tolvaptan) or from 55.1 to 67.0 years (SOC). The eGFR annual decline rate was significantly reduced by 1.66 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 0.43-2.90; P = 0.009) in the tolvaptan group compared with SOC (-2.33 versus -3.99 mL/min/1.73 m2) over 3 years.LimitationsLimitations include potential bias because of study population differences (bias risk was reduced through matching and multiple regression adjustment); vascular disease history data was not uniformly collected, and therefore not adjusted; and natural history of ADPKD precludes evaluating certain clinical endpoints within the study time frame.ConclusionsIn individuals aged 56-65 years with CKD G3 or G4, compared to a SOC group with mean GFR rate of decline ≥3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, tolvaptan was associated with efficacy similar to that observed in the overall indication.FundingOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc (Rockville, MD).Trial registrationTEMPO 2:4 (NCT00413777); phase 1 tolvaptan trial (no NCT number; trial number 156-06-260); phase 2 tolvaptan trial (NCT01336972); TEMPO 4:4 (NCT01214421); REPRISE (NCT02160145); long-term tolvaptan safety extension trial (NCT02251275); OVERTURE (NCT01430494); HALT Progression of Polycystic Kidney Disease (HALT-PKD) study B (NCT01885559).

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) currently apply the same statistical threshold of alpha = 2.5% for controlling for false-positive results or type 1 error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. Is there an objective and systematic framework for designing RCTs that incorporates these considerations on a case-by-case basis?ObjectiveTo apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to cancer therapeutics to choose an alpha and sample size that minimize the potential harm to current and future patients under both null and alternative hypotheses.Data sourcesWe used the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and data from the 10 clinical trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.Study selectionThe NCI SEER database was used because it is the most comprehensive cancer database in the United States. The Alliance trial data was used owing to the quality and breadth of data, and because of the expertise in these trials of one of us (D.J.S.).Data extraction and synthesisThe NCI SEER and Alliance data have already been thoroughly vetted. Computations were replicated independently by 2 coauthors and reviewed by all coauthors.Main outcomes and measuresOur prior hypothesis was that an alpha of 2.5% would not minimize the overall expected harm to current and future patients for the most deadly cancers, and that a less conservative alpha may be necessary. Our primary study outcomes involve measuring the potential harm to patients under both null and alternative hypotheses using NCI and Alliance data, and then computing BDA-optimal type 1 error rates and sample sizes for oncology RCTs.ResultsWe computed BDA-optimal parameters for the 23 most common cancer sites using NCI data, and for the 10 Alliance clinical trials. For RCTs involving therapies for cancers with short survival times, no existing treatments, and low prevalence, the BDA-optimal type 1 error rates were much higher than the traditional 2.5%. For cancers with longer survival times, existing treatments, and high prevalence, the corresponding BDA-optimal error rates were much lower, in some cases even lower than 2.5%.Conclusions and relevanceBayesian decision analysis is a systematic, objective, transparent, and repeatable process for deciding the outcomes of RCTs that explicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.

Dataset Information

Imprecise Kidney Function Thresholds in Cancer Clinical Trials and the Potential for Harm.

Publications

Imprecise Kidney Function Thresholds in Cancer Clinical Trials and the Potential for Harm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets