Dataset Information

How is best supportive care provided in clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer? A review of registered protocols of clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Background:In 2012, 11 standards describing best supportive care (bsc) in clinical trials in advanced cancer were defined through consensus statements. The consensus included 15 key components. Our objective was to analyze whether clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancer and that included bsc in at least 1 arm met the standards and contained the key components. Methods:We reviewed clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, the isrctn (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) registry, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for 2012-2018. We selected only phase iii studies in patients with advanced cancer that included bsc in at least 1 arm. We describe the characteristics of the trials, together with the definition and components of bsc. We analyzed how the trials met the standards and adopted the key components of bsc. Results:Of 193 trials retrieved, only 64 met the inclusion criteria; 36 of those trials (56%) had no definition of bsc. Less than 7% of the trials included even 3 of the 8 bsc standards that were defined to be included in the design of trials. Furthermore, trials mentioned only 5 of the 15 key components that the consensus defined to be fundamental, with symptom management appearing in 22% of trials and the other 4 components appearing in less than 8%. Summary:Most clinical trials registered during 2012-2018 that involved patients with cancer and an arm with bsc did not define the bsc concept. Hence, the design of those trials does not meet the consensus recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Sanz Rubiales A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7253756 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How is best supportive care provided in clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer? A review of registered protocols of clinical trials.

Sanz Rubiales Á Á Sánchez-Gutiérrez M E ME Flores Pérez L A LA Del Valle Rivero M L ML

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>In 2012, 11 standards describing best supportive care (bsc) in clinical trials in advanced cancer were defined through consensus statements. The consensus included 15 key components. Our objective was to analyze whether clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancer and that included bsc in at least 1 arm met the standards and contained the key components.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, the isrctn (International Standa ...[more]

PMID: 32489259

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer.MethodsWe are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone.DiscussionThese studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery.Trial registrationsNCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205.

Project description:ImportanceSingle-agent immune checkpoint inhibition has not shown activities in advanced refractory colorectal cancer (CRC), other than in those patients who are microsatellite-instability high (MSI-H).ObjectiveTo evaluate whether combining programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition improved patient survival in metastatic refractory CRC.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized phase 2 study was conducted in 27 cancer centers across Canada between August 2016 and June 2017, and data were analyzed on October 18, 2018. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; received all available standard systemic therapies (fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab if appropriate; cetuximab or panitumumab if RAS wild-type tumors; regorafenib if available); were aged 18 years or older; had adequate organ function; had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and measurable disease.InterventionsWe randomly assigned patients to receive either 75 mg of tremelimumab every 28 days for the first 4 cycles plus 1500 mg durvalumab every 28 days, or best supportive care alone (BSC) in a 2:1 ratio.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS) and a 2-sided P<.10 was considered statistically significant. Circulating cell-free DNA from baseline plasma was used to determine microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutation burden (TMB).ResultsOf 180 patients enrolled (121 men [67.2%] and 59 women [32.8%]; median [range] age, 65 [36-87] years), 179 were treated. With a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 6.6 months for durvalumab and tremelimumab and 4.1 months for BSC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 90% CI, 0.54-0.97; P = .07). Progression-free survival was 1.8 months and 1.9 months respectively (HR, 1.01; 90% CI, 0.76-1.34). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were significantly more frequent with immunotherapy (75 [64%] patients in the treatment group had at least 1 grade 3 or higher adverse event vs 12 [20%] in the BSC group). Circulating cell-free DNA analysis was successful in 168 of 169 patients with available samples. In patients who were microsatellite stable (MSS), OS was significantly improved with durvalumab and tremelimumab (HR, 0.66; 90% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = .02). Patients who were MSS with plasma TMB of 28 variants per megabase or more (21% of MSS patients) had the greatest OS benefit (HR, 0.34; 90% CI, 0.18-0.63; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThis phase 2 study suggests that combined immune checkpoint inhibition with durvalumab plus tremelimumab may be associated with prolonged OS in patients with advanced refractory CRC. Elevated plasma TMB may select patients most likely to benefit from durvalumab and tremelimumab. Further confirmation studies are warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02870920.

Project description:ImportancePublishing study protocols might reduce research waste because of unclear methods or incomplete reporting; on the other hand, there might be few additional benefits of publishing protocols for registered trials that are never completed or published. No study has investigated the proportion of published protocols associated with published results.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of published trial protocols for which there are not associated published results.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used stratified random sampling to identify registered clinical trials with protocols published between January 2011 and August 2022 and indexed in PubMed Central. Ongoing studies and those within 1 year of the primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Published results were sought from August 2022 to March 2023 by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, emailing authors, and using an automated tool, as well as through incidental discovery.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a weighted estimate of the proportion of registered trials with published protocols that also had published main results. The proportion of trials with unpublished results was estimated using a weighted mean.ResultsFrom 1500 citations that were screened, 308 clinical trial protocols were included, and it was found that 87 trials had not published their main results. Most included trials were investigator-initiated evaluations of nonregulated products. When published, results appeared a mean (SD) of 3.4 (2.0) years after protocol publications. With the use of a weighted mean, an estimated 4754 (95% CI, 4296-5226) eligible clinical trial protocols were published and indexed in PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022. In the weighted analysis, 1708 of those protocols (36%; 95% CI, 31%-41%) were not associated with publication of main results. In a sensitivity analysis excluding protocols published after 2019, an estimated 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) of 3670 (95% CI, 3310-4032) protocol publications were not associated with publication of main results.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study of clinical trial protocols published on PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022 suggests that many protocols were not associated with subsequent publication of results. The overall benefits of publishing study protocols might outweigh the research waste caused by unnecessary protocol publications.

Dataset Information

How is best supportive care provided in clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer? A review of registered protocols of clinical trials.

Publications

How is best supportive care provided in clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer? A review of registered protocols of clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets