Dataset Information

Inferences About Drug Safety in Phase III Trials in Oncology: Examples From Advanced Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Safety is a central consideration when choosing between multiple medications with similar efficacy. We aimed to evaluate whether adverse event (AE) profiles of 3 such drugs in advanced prostate cancer could be distinguished based on published literature.

Methods

We assessed consistency in AE reporting, AE risk in placebo arms, and methodology used for risk estimates and quantification of statistical uncertainty in randomized placebo-controlled phase III trials of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide in advanced prostate cancer.

Results

Seven included clinical trials enrolled a total of 9215 participants (range = 1051-1715 per trial) across 3 prostate cancer disease states. Within disease states, baseline patient characteristics appeared similar between trials. Of 54 distinct AE types in total, only 3 (fatigue, hypertension, and seizure) were reported by all 7 trials. Absolute risks of AEs in the placebo arms differed systematically and more than twofold between trials, which was associated with visit frequency and resulted in different degrees of uncertainty in AE profiles between trials. No trial used inferential methodology to quantify statistical uncertainty in AE risks, but 6 of 7 trials drew overall conclusions. Two trials concluded that there was no elevated AE risk because of the intervention, including the trial of darolutamide, which had the greatest statistical uncertainty.

Conclusions

Rigorous comparison of drug safety was precluded by heterogeneity in AE reporting, variation in AE risks in the placebo arms, and lack of inferential statistical methodology, underscoring considerable opportunities to improve how AE data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted in oncology trials.

SUBMITTER: Drago JZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8096372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsDirect comparisons across first-line regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are not available. We performed a network metanalysis of phase III of trials to compare first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs).MethodsAfter performing a literature review from January 2008 to September 2022, we screened 6,329 studies and reviewed 3,009 studies, leading to identification of 15 phase III trials for analysis. We extracted odds ratios for objective response rate and disease control rate, relative risks for AEs, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS, and used a frequentist network metanalysis, with fixed-effect multivariable meta-regression models to estimate the indirect pooled HRs, odds ratios, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs, considering sorafenib as reference.ResultsOf 10,820 included patients, 10,444 received active treatment and 376 placebo. Sintilimab + IBI350, camrelizumab + rivoceranib, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab provided the greatest reduction in the risk of death compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75), 0.62 (95% CI 0.49-0.79), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.84), respectively. Considering PFS, camrelizumab + rivoceranib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of PFS events compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41-0.65) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35-0.77), respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies carried the lowest risk for all-grade and grade ≥3 AEs.ConclusionsThe combinations of ICI + anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and double ICIs lead to the greatest OS benefit compared with sorafenib, whereas ICI + kinase inhibitor regimens are associated with greater PFS benefit at the cost of higher toxicity rates.Impact and implicationsIn the last few years, many different therapies have been studied for patients with primary liver cancer that cannot be treated with surgery. In these cases, anticancer drugs (alone or in combination) are given with the intent to keep the cancer at bay and, ultimately, to prolong survival. Among all the therapies that have been investigated, the combination of immunotherapy (drugs that boost the immune system against the cancer) and anti-angiogenic agents (drugs that act on tumoural vessels) has appeared the best to improve survival. Similarly, the combination of two types of immunotherapies that activate the immune system at different levels has also shown positive results.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022366330.

Project description:BackgroundThe incorporation of crossover in randomised controlled trials is accepted as an ethical obligation, especially in cancer clinical trials. The more common type of crossover is crossover allowance, which allows patients assigned to one arm to switch to another arm if there is an established benefit in the crossover arm. In contrast, crossover-designed studies involve switching patients from all arms to a different arm as part of the study design. Crossover allowance may have advantages in patient recruitment and incorporating crossover after initial positive results fulfil ethical requirements. However, crossover can also contribute to confounding major endpoints of studies, such as overall survival or the second progression-free survival interval. For this reason, it is important to investigate and identify potential trends of crossover in clinical trials testing novel therapies.MethodsData about cancer clinical trials were extracted from clinicaltrials.gov. The search query was limited to completed phase III studies in adult populations. Location was limited to the USA. Date range extended from 1990 to 2019. Search query included the terms: cancer; completed- recruitment status; age: 18-65+ years; sex: all; location: USA; and study phase: phase 3. Studies were then excluded if they were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with the primary purpose of treatment and if they did not test cancer-related interventions.ResultsA total of 744 clinical trials were identified. There were 459 RCTs aimed at treatment, and of those, 35 utilised crossover. The start dates of these crossover trials ranged from 1997 to 2012. Thirty studies utilised crossover allowance. Prostate, breast and gastrointestinal stromal tumour cancers were the most represented cancer types in crossover studies. Among the 30 studies, the median proportion of patients who crossed over relative to the original arm assignment ranged from 2% to 88%, with a median of 57.5%.ConclusionsThe proportion of identified clinical trials with crossover compared to those without is extremely small. Crossover in clinical trials studying cancer treatment does not appear to be a widespread practice. Even though statistical approaches to mitigate confounding exist, crossover can still skew accurate reporting of the impact of experimental therapies on overall survival.