Dataset Information

Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapies represent a promising strategy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treatment. Different immunotherapies include the use of checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and vaccines such as dendritic cell vaccines. Antibodies have also been used as toxin or radioactive particle delivery vehicles to eliminate target cells in the treatment of GBM. Oncolytic viral therapy and other immunogenic cell death-inducing treatments bridge the antitumor strategy with immunization and installation of immune control over the disease. These strategies should be included in the standard treatment protocol for GBM. Some immunotherapies are individualized in terms of the medicinal product, the immune target, and the immune tumor-host contact. Current individualized immunotherapy strategies focus on combinations of approaches. Standardization appears to be impossible in the face of complex controlled trial designs. To define appropriate control groups, stratification according to the Recursive Partitioning Analysis classification, MGMT promotor methylation, epigenetic GBM sub-typing, tumor microenvironment, systemic immune functioning before and after radiochemotherapy, and the need for/type of symptom-relieving drugs is required. Moreover, maintenance of a fixed treatment protocol for a dynamic, deadly cancer disease in a permanently changing tumor-host immune context might be inappropriate. This complexity is illustrated using our own data on individualized multimodal immunotherapies for GBM. Individualized medicines, including multimodal immunotherapies, are a rational and optimal yet also flexible approach to induce long-term tumor control. However, innovative methods are needed to assess the efficacy of complex individualized treatments and implement them more quickly into the general health system.

SUBMITTER: Van Gool SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7796083 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged.

Van Gool Stefaan W SW Makalowski Jennifer J Fiore Simon S Sprenger Tobias T Prix Lothar L Schirrmacher Volker V Stuecker Wilfried W

Cancers 20201224 1

Immunotherapies represent a promising strategy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treatment. Different immunotherapies include the use of checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and vaccines such as dendritic cell vaccines. Antibodies have also been used as toxin or radioactive particle delivery vehicles to eliminate target cells in the treatment of GBM. Oncolytic viral therapy and other immunogenic cell death-inducing treatments bridge the ...[more]

PMID: 33374196

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

Project description:Informed consent is an essential element of clinical research. Obtaining consent, however, may be challenging. The use of the telephone for giving information and obtaining consent may be practical but little formal research has been done.We examined the use of the telephone for the purpose of informing expectant mothers about The Danish Calmette Study; a randomized clinical trial assessing neonatal Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. Expectant mothers received an invitation letter with a Participant Information Sheet about The Danish Calmette Study, the present trial, and a Consent Form. Two to 4 weeks later we contacted the mothers to discuss potential participation in the present trial. At this initial telephone contact, and after consent from the mothers, we randomized expectant mothers to receive the verbal information about The Danish Calmette Study by telephone, or at a face-to-face consultation. The primary outcome was a communication score, consisting of comprehension of information about The Danish Calmette Study and satisfaction with the information process. The outcome was measured using a questionnaire 2 days after the information was provided, and 2.5 months after the birth of the child.The communication score obtained 2 days after information was given was significantly reduced in the telephone group, effect size -0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI), -1.11 to -0.36). The effect sizes of the subscores were -0.87 (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.49) for satisfaction and -0.22 (95% CI, -0.58 to 0.14) for comprehension. The effect sizes were slightly reduced when assessed 2.5 months after the birth.The communication score was reduced in the telephone group. This was due to a reduction in satisfaction, while no difference in the comprehension could be found in comparison to the control group. This may be ethically acceptable as both groups had high satisfaction scores.ClinicalTrials.gov, registered on 5 October 2015 with trial registration number NCT02570061 .

Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with different clinical and molecular characteristics such as age, sex, histological type, performance status (PS), smoking status, driver mutations, metastatic site, region and number of prior systemic regimens.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify qualified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsA total of 19 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. ICI-based therapy significantly improved OS compared with non-ICI therapy in patients aged <65 years (HR, 0.74; P<0.00001), 65-74 years (HR, 0.73; P<0.00001), receiving first-line (HR, 0.75; P<0.00001) or second-line (HR, 0.72; P<0.00001) treatment, current or previous smokers (HR, 0.76; P<0.00001), and EGFR wild-type patients (HR, 0.76; P<0.00001), but not in patients aged ≥75 years (HR, 0.91; P=0.50), receiving third-line treatment (HR, 0.93; P=0.55), never smokers (HR, 0.84; P=0.10), or EGFR mutant patients (HR, 0.99; P=0.92). No statistical OS improvement was observed in KRAS mutant (HR, 0.68; P=0.05) or KRAS wild-type (HR, 0.95; P=0.65) patients. Immunotherapy improved OS in NSCLC patients, regardless of sex (male or female), histological type (squamous or non-squamous NSCLC), PS (0 or 1), metastatic site (brain or liver metastases), and region (East Asia or America/Europe) (all P<0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit of ICIs in patients with brain metastases was observed in first-line combination therapy (P<0.05), but not in second or more line monotherapy (P>0.05). Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors significantly prolonged OS in patients with liver metastases compared with non-ICI therapy (P=0.0007), but PD-L1 inhibitors did not (P=0.35). Similar results were observed in the combined analysis of PFS.ConclusionsAge, smoking status, EGFR mutation status, and number of prior systemic regimens predicted the efficacy of immunotherapy. While sex, histological type, PS 0 or 1, KRAS mutation status and region were not associated with the efficacy of ICIs. Patients with liver metastases benefited from anti-PD-1-based therapy, and those with brain metastases benefited from first-line ICI-based combination therapy.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020206062.

Project description:BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) is a valuable feature of electronic health records (EHRs) designed to improve quality and safety. However, due to the complexities of system design and inconsistent results, CDS tools may inadvertently increase alert fatigue and contribute to physician burnout. A/B testing, or rapid-cycle randomized tests, is a useful method that can be applied to the EHR in order to rapidly understand and iteratively improve design choices embedded within CDS tools.ObjectiveThis paper describes how rapid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) embedded within EHRs can be used to quickly ascertain the superiority of potential CDS design changes to improve their usability, reduce alert fatigue, and promote quality of care.MethodsA multistep process combining tools from user-centered design, A/B testing, and implementation science was used to understand, ideate, prototype, test, analyze, and improve each candidate CDS. CDS engagement metrics (alert views, acceptance rates) were used to evaluate which CDS version is superior.ResultsTo demonstrate the impact of the process, 2 experiments are highlighted. First, after multiple rounds of usability testing, a revised CDS influenza alert was tested against usual care CDS in a rapid (~6 weeks) RCT. The new alert text resulted in minimal impact on reducing firings per patients per day, but this failure triggered another round of review that identified key technical improvements (ie, removal of dismissal button and firings in procedural areas) that led to a dramatic decrease in firings per patient per day (23.1 to 7.3). In the second experiment, the process was used to test 3 versions (financial, quality, regulatory) of text supporting tobacco cessation alerts as well as 3 supporting images. Based on 3 rounds of RCTs, there was no significant difference in acceptance rates based on the framing of the messages or addition of images.ConclusionsThese experiments support the potential for this new process to rapidly develop, deploy, and rigorously evaluate CDS within an EHR. We also identified important considerations in applying these methods. This approach may be an important tool for improving the impact of and experience with CDS.Trial registrationFlu alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03415425; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03415425. Tobacco alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03714191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714191.

Dataset Information

Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged.

Publications

Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets