Dataset Information

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Proportionate female representation in health research is necessary for scientific rigor and health equity. We aimed to assess the representation of women in clinical trials leading to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals.

Materials and methods

Trials supporting FDA cancer drug approvals between July 2008 and June 2018 were sourced from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. The ratio of female to male trial enrollment was compared with cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S. using International Agency for Research on Cancer data. Reproductive tract and breast cancers were excluded. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing trial enrollment with population incidence and mortality were calculated.

Results

A total of 186 trials leading to 170 FDA cancer drug approvals showed slight female underrepresentation compared with overall cancer incidence in the U.S. (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98, p < .0001). Female enrollment for drugs approved between 2008-2013 and 2014-2018 was unchanged (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.05, p = .25). There was slight female underrepresentation in hematological trials (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.998; p = .040 for leukemia; OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.997; p = .040 for lymphoma) and significant female underrepresentation in colorectal (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76; p < .0001), pancreas (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = .0004), lung (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80; p < .0001), kidney (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.67; p < .0001), and thyroid cancer trials (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.28; p < .0001) compared with U.S. incidence.

Conclusions

Female underrepresentation has persisted within solid organ tumor trials but is less notable in hematologic trials. Additional work is required to identify drivers of such disparity.

Implications for practice

Adequate gender representation in clinical trials is a matter of health equity. This study demonstrates that women remain underrepresented in trials across hematological and solid organ trials compared with cancer incidence and mortality in women, with the disparity worse in a number of solid organ tumor types. There are thus still significant improvements to be made regarding adequate representation of women in trials. Studies exploring the reasons for ongoing disparity in gender representation are warranted to help clinicians to rectify this.

SUBMITTER: Mendis S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7873318 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.

Mendis Shehara S Anand Seerat S Karasinska Joanna M JM Dasari Arvind A Unger Joseph M JM Gothwal Anirudh A Ellis Lee M LM Varadhachary Gauri G Kopetz Scott S Overman Michael J MJ Raghav Kanwal K Loree Jonathan M JM

The oncologist 20201007 2

<h4>Background</h4>Proportionate female representation in health research is necessary for scientific rigor and health equity. We aimed to assess the representation of women in clinical trials leading to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Trials supporting FDA cancer drug approvals between July 2008 and June 2018 were sourced from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. The ratio of female to male trial enrollment was compared with cancer incidence ...[more]

PMID: 32960478

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Representative racial/ethnic participation in research, especially in clinical trials that establish standards of care, is necessary to minimize disparities in outcomes and to uphold societal equity in health care. Objective:To evaluate the frequency of race reporting and proportional race representation in trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Database study of all reported trials supporting FDA oncology drug approvals granted between July 2008 and June 2018. Primary reports of trials were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Food and Drug Administration approvals were identified using the FDA archives. The US population-based cancer estimates by race were calculated using National Cancer Institute-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and US Census databases. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes were the proportion of trials reporting race and the proportion of patients by race participating in trials. Secondary outcomes included race subgroup analyses reporting and gaps between race proportion in trials and the US population. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and ?2 tests were used to analyze the data. Proportions and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were reported. Results:Among 230 trials with a total of 112?293 participants, 145 (63.0%) reported on at least 1 race, 18 (7.8%) documented the 4 major races in the United States (white, Asian, black, and Hispanic), and 58 (25.2%) reported race subgroup analyses. Reporting on white, Asian, black, and Hispanic races was included in 144 (62.6%), 110 (47.8%), 88 (38.2%), and 23 (10.0%) trials, respectively. Between July 2008 and June 2013 vs July 2013 and June 2018, the number of trials reporting race (45 [56.6%] vs 100 [67.1%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93-2.87; P?=?.09) and race subgroup analysis (13 [16.1%] vs 45 [30.2%]; OR, 2.26, 95% CI, 1.16-4.67; P?=?.03) changed minimally and varied across races. Whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics represented 76.3%, 18.3%, 3.1% and 6.1% of trial participants, respectively, and the proportion for each race enrolled over time changed nominally (blacks, 3.6% vs 2.9% and Hispanics, 5.3% vs 6.7%) from July 2008 to June 2013 vs July 2013 to June 2018. Compared with their proportion of US cancer incidence, blacks (22% of expected) and Hispanics (44% of expected) were underrepresented compared with whites (98% of expected) and Asians (438% of expected). Conclusions and Relevance:Race and race subgroup analysis reporting occurs infrequently, and black and Hispanic races are consistently underrepresented compared with their burden of cancer incidence in landmark trials that led to FDA oncology drug approvals. Enhanced minority engagement is needed in trials to ensure the validity of results and reliable benefits to all.

Project description:Abstract Background: PRO1160 is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) directed to CD70, an antigen mediating immuno-suppression that is overexpressed in multiple solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, with limited distribution in normal tissues. PRO1160 comprises (1) a human monoclonal antibody specific for CD70, (2) a protease-cleavable proprietary hydrophilic linker, and (3) exatecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. Comprehensive prior work demonstrated that the hydrophilic linker confers excellent physicochemical properties and pharmacokinetics (PK) across a range of payload mechanisms and is superior to conventional linkers on these critical parameters for ADCs. In addition, exatecan is broadly active in many tumor types, is membrane permeable, and is not a substrate of multidrug resistance pumps, thus likely lending strong bystander effects and durable treatment responses. PRO1160 is highly potent in cell-derived xenograft models of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PRO1160 also demonstrates marked antitumor activity in patient-derived xenograft models of diverse tumor sites, histologies, molecular subtypes, target expression levels, and Epstein Barr Virus status. PRO1160 is stable in circulation and displays PK characteristics indistinguishable from the parent antibody in rats. In a GLP toxicity study in cynomolgus monkeys, the primary PRO1160-related toxicity resided in the thymus and bone marrow, was consistent with exatecan toxicities, and was reversible. PRO1160-001 is an ongoing, open-label Phase 1/2 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, PK, and antitumor activity of PRO1160 in patients with metastatic RCC, metastatic or relapsed NPC, or advanced relapsed/refractory NHL. Patients must have measurable disease per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 or the Lugano Classification for NHL. Patients must also have previously received therapies known to confer clinical benefit unless considered ineligible, refused by the patient, or not available in the region. PRO1160 is given by intravenous infusion on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle and treatment may continue until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reason for discontinuation. The primary objectives are to evaluate the safety and tolerability of PRO1160 and to identify the maximum tolerated dose, if reached, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). This study consists of 2 parts, Part A: dose-escalation and dose-level expansion, and Part B: 3 tumor-specific expansion cohorts (metastatic RCC, metastatic or relapsed NPC, or advanced relapsed/refractory NHL) treated at the RP2D. PK, immunogenicity, and antitumor activity will also be evaluated. The study is currently enrolling at sites in the US, with future enrollment in China planned (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05721222).

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Dataset Information

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications for practice

Publications

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets