Dataset Information

Updating Reports of Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are usually reported after a predetermined number of events (death or disease progression) have occurred, when survival curves remain poorly defined. Updated reports are important in providing mature data.

Objectives

To evaluate the proportion of phase 3 RCTs for cancer that are updated and the factors that are associated with updating them and, for updated trials, to compare initial and updated results.

Design, setting, and participants

This study identified reports of 2-group RCTs with a sample size of at least 100, published in 6 major journals between 1990 and 2010, that evaluated drug treatments for breast, lung, or prostate cancer. PubMed and abstracts of large cancer conferences were searched to identify updated (or earlier) reports of the same trials published up to 2019. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the provision of updated reports. The hazard ratios defining the relative treatment effects for the primary and secondary end points between the initial and updated reports were compared.

Main outcomes and measures

Proportion of RCTs whose results are updated, factors associated with updating, and change in hazard ratio for the primary end point between initial and updated reports.

Results

A total of 207 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and 41 (20%) were found to have updated reports. The factors significantly associated with an update included positive trial results (odds ratio [OR], 8.7 [95% CI, 3.3-23.3]), larger trial size (OR, 1.0006 [95% CI, 1.0000-1.0012]), evaluation of hormonal agents (OR, 5.8 [95% CI, 1.6-21.8]) or targeted agents (OR, 4.3 [95% CI, 1.3-14.6]) compared with chemotherapy, and evaluation of adjuvant therapy rather than therapy for advanced disease (OR, 8.0 [95% CI, 2.9-21.9]). For 31 trials for which initial and updated hazard ratios for the primary end point were available, the median hazard ratio increased from 0.66 (95% CI, 0.22-1.20) to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.32-1.19) (P < .001), indicating a decreased level of effectiveness.

Conclusions and relevance

Only 20% of reports of phase 3 clinical trials for breast, lung, and prostate cancer were updated. Original reports of such trials are based on relatively few events, and their results are immature; more mature data indicate a decreased level of effect in updated trials. Updated reporting to provide mature, long-term results of clinical trials should be mandated.

SUBMITTER: Elimova E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7863013 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:TARGET (Tumour characterisation to Guide Experimental Targeted therapy) seeks to optimise the pathway for molecular characterisation of all patients entering early phase cancer trials to inform clinical decision-making on optimal therapy. Performance status (PS) was developed to assess a patient’s ability to perform a variety of activities to further inform clinical decision making on optimal therapy including appropriate inclusion in clinical trials. However, the quality of present algorithms to assess performance status are limited and based on a semi-quantitative clinician assessment. In particular, a common eligibility criterion for entry into early phase cancer clinical trials is a life expectancy of >3 or 6 months. Here we investigate proteomics as a means of more objective and quantitative assessment of both performance status and thus likely prognosis prior to clinical trial enrolment. Improved patient stratification at enrolment would reduce the number of patients unnecessarily exposed to potentially toxic drugs and decrease withdrawal from trials. Plasma samples from patients enrolled into the TARGET trial were analysed using the mass spectrometry (MS) technique: Sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra (SWATH) MS. SWATH-MS was used on a discovery cohort of 73 patients to identify proteins that could differentiate patients into either a good or poor prognosis. A three-protein panel showed a stronger prediction of overall survival (p = 0.000086) compared to PS (p = 0.001). This panel was then tested against a validation cohort of 77 patients. The panel was determined as being a significant (p = 0.000451) predictor of overall survival whereas PS was not significant. The panel had a receiver operating characteristic curve area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 in the validation set; the AUC of PS was 0.54. This signature can now be developed further in larger patient populations to assess its utility in a clinical setting.