Unequal allotment of patients in phase III oncology clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gupta S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8332855 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Geriatric patients and minority patients are often under-represented in cancer clinical trials. The presence of multiple comorbidities makes geriatric patients ineligible for most clinical trials. Racial diversity may vary by geographical location and socio-economically backward areas may have a very different racial mix. The increase in cancer incidence in geriatric patients' raises the question of applicability of the results is such clinical trials. This study also explores the representation of different races in phase 3 clinical trials conducted in the past 10 years. Methods: Data about Phase III trials was extracted from the clinical trials.gov for 3 common solid organs and 3 hematological malignancies [breast, colon, lung, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)]. The time period studied was for the past 10 years and included only adult patients (≥18 years). The age and race distribution of the patient population in these trials were extracted and analyzed. Results: Geriatric patients and minorities are under-represented in all phase III cancer clinical trials. The range of the proportion of geriatric patients varied from 10% to 40%. African American and Asian patients are under-represented in all phase III cancer clinical trials. Conclusions: The results of phase III clinical trials that are currently conducted on non-geriatric and Caucasian patient population may not meaningfully be applicable to geriatric patients and minorities. This study highlights the disparity of age and race for patients enrolled in clinical trials as against the patients seen in the real world.
| S-EPMC7540092 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7738270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite stringent eligibility criteria for trial participation, early discontinuation often occurs in phase I trials. To better identify patients unlikely to benefit from phase I trials, we investigated predictors for early trial discontinuation. Data from 415 patients with solid tumors who participated in 66 trials were pooled for the current analysis. Early trial discontinuation was defined as (i) trial discontinuation within 28 days after start of treatment or (ii) discontinuation before administration of the first dosage in eligible patients. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors for early trial discontinuation. Eighty-two participants (20%) demonstrated early trial discontinuation. Baseline sodium level below the lower limit of normal (OR = 2.95, 95%CI = 1.27-6.84), elevated alkaline phosphatase level > 2.5 times the upper limit of normal (OR = 2.72, 95%CI = 1.49-4.99), performance score ≥ 1 (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.03-4.19) and opioid use (OR = 1.82, 95%CI = 1.07-3.08) were independent predictors for early trial discontinuation. Almost 50% of the patients with hyponatremia and all four patients in whom all four predictors were present together discontinued the trial early. Hyponatremia, elevated alkaline phosphatase level, performance score ≥ 1 and opioid use were identified as significant predictors for early trial discontinuation. Hyponatremia was the strongest predictor and deserves consideration for inclusion in eligibility criteria for future trials.
| S-EPMC8151105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) in subjects enrolling in clinical trials can impact not only safety of the patient but also study drug outcomes and data validity. This makes it critical to adequately screen and manage DDIs. The study objective was to determine the prevalence of DDIs involving study medications in subjects enrolling in National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) clinical trials at a single institution. DDIs were evaluated based on study protocol recommendations for concomitant medication use (i.e. exclude, avoid or use caution), screening via DDI tool, and pharmacist review.MethodsSubjects enrolled in NCTN trials of commercially available agents between January 2013 and August 2017 were included if a complete medication list was available. Complete medication lists were collected from the date of enrollment or the next available date then screened utilizing protocol guidance and the DDI screening tool, Lexicomp® Drug Interactions (Wolters Kluwer, Hudson, OH). Interactions were reviewed for clinical relevance: defined as a DDI that would require a medication change to ensure study agent safety and efficacy at enrollment.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-eight subjects enrolled in 35 clinical trials were included. Protocol guidance detected 15 unique DDI pairs that should be avoided or used with caution in 10.2% (13/128) of subjects. The majority of these subjects did not have a clinically relevant DDI (69.2%, 9/13) based on pharmacist review. Lexicomp® detected moderate to major DDIs in 24.2% (31/128) of subjects, with 9.4% (12/128) having a clinically relevant DDI.ConclusionsThis study confirms a high prevalence of DDIs present in subjects enrolling in oncology clinical trials. Further efforts should be made to improve methods to detect and manage DDIs in patients enrolling on clinical trials to ensure patient safety and trial data validity.
| S-EPMC6249716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical development of cancer drugs is rapidly moving from empirical "one drug fits all" or development-by-tumor-type approaches towards more personalized treatment models. A deeper understanding of cancer and the immune system, novel technologies, and powerful analytics have fueled an increase in precision oncology approaches integrating the molecular profiles of the tumor with the clinical profile of the patient. While this approach has been successful for targeted therapies, the complex mode of action of immunotherapies will likely require integration of clinical profiling with more comprehensive profiling of the tumor, of the tumor microenvironment, and of the immune system of the patient. Integration of precision oncology into clinical research for immunotherapies is viewed as a means to better select patients in the early clinical phase of drug development to (1) maximize the benefit-to-risk ratio for the patient, (2) generate early proof of concept and proof of relevance for the investigational drug, and (3) inform on how to best combine or sequence the therapeutic with other drugs. Here we discuss the upsides and challenges of incorporating precision immuno-oncology into early-phase clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6875515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:With numerous and fast approvals of different agents including immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, immunotherapy is now an established form of cancer treatment. These agents have demonstrated impressive clinical activity across many tumor types, but also revealed different toxicity profiles and mechanisms of action. The classic assumptions imposed by cytotoxic agents may no longer be applicable, requiring new strategies for dose selection and trial design. DESCRIPTION:This main goal of this article is to summarize and highlight main challenges of early-phase study design of immunotherapies from a statistical perspective. We compared the underlying toxicity and efficacy assumptions of cytotoxic versus immune-oncology agents, proposed novel endpoints to be included in the dose-selection process, and reviewed design considerations to be considered for early-phase trials. When available, references to software and/or web-based applications were also provided to ease the implementation. Throughout the paper, concrete examples from completed (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or ongoing trials were used to motivate the main ideas including recommendation of alternative designs. CONCLUSION:Further advances in the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies will require new approaches that include redefining the optimal dose to be carried forward in later phases, incorporating additional endpoints in the dose selection process (PK, PD, immune-based biomarkers), developing personalized biomarker profiles, or testing drug combination therapies to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity.
| S-EPMC6103998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSafety 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionsRigorous 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.
| S-EPMC8096372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults, but effective therapies are lacking. With the scarcity of positive phase III trials, which are increasing in cost, we examined the ability of positive phase II trials to predict statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes of phase III trials.MethodsA PubMed search was conducted to identify phase III clinical trials performed in the past 25 years for patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. Trials were excluded if they did not examine an investigational chemotherapy or agent, if they were stopped early owing to toxicity, if they lacked prior phase II studies, or if a prior phase II study was negative.ResultsSeven phase III clinical trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and 4 phase III clinical trials in recurrent glioblastoma met the inclusion criteria. Only 1 (9%) phase III study documented an improvement in overall survival and changed the standard of care.ConclusionThe high failure rate of phase III trials demonstrates the urgent need to increase the reliability of phase II trials of treatments for glioblastoma. Strategies such as the use of adaptive trial designs, Bayesian statistics, biomarkers, volumetric imaging, and mathematical modeling warrant testing. Additionally, it is critical to increase our expectations of phase II trials so that positive findings increase the probability that a phase III trial will be successful.
| S-EPMC5761583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acinetobacter infections, especially multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter infections, are a global health problem. This study aimed to describe clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed Acinetobacter spp. isolates who were treated with tigecycline in randomized clinical trials.Data from 14 multinational, randomized (open-label or double-blind), and active-controlled (except one) Phase III and IV studies were analyzed using descriptive statistics.A total of 174 microbiologically evaluable patients with Acinetobacter spp. infections (including MDR infections) were identified, and 95 received tigecycline to treat community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), diabetic foot infections (DFIs), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), infections with resistant pathogens (RPs), or complicated skin and skin-structure infections. The rate of cure of tigecycline for most indications was 70%-80%, with the highest (88.2%) in cIAIs. The rate of cure of the comparators was generally higher than tigecycline, but within each indication the 95% CIs for clinical cure for each treatment group overlapped. For most Acinetobacter isolates, the minimum inhibitory concentration of tigecycline was 0.12-2 ?g/mL, with seven at 4 ?g/mL and one at 8 ?g/mL. The cure rate by tigecycline was 50% (95% CI 12.5%-87.5% in CAP) to 88.2% (95% CI 66.2%-97.1% in cIAIs) for all Acinetobacter, and 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-93.2% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 25%-100.0% in cIAIs) for MDR Acinetobacter. For the comparators, it was 83.8% (95% CI 62.8%-95.9% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 75%-100% in cIAIs and 25%-100.0% in RPs) and 88% (95% CI 66%-97% in HAP) to 100% (95% CI 25%-100% in cIAIs and 75%-100% in DFIs), respectively.These findings suggest that with appropriate monitoring, tigecycline may be a useful consideration for Acinetobacter infections alone or in combination with other anti-infective agents when other therapies are not suitable.
| S-EPMC5679678 | biostudies-other
Project description:Accumulating neurological disability has a substantial impact on the lives of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). As well as the established Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), several other outcome measures are now available for assessing disability progression in MS. This review extends the findings of a previous analysis of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) trials published up to 2012, to determine whether there has been a shift in outcome measures used to assess disability in phase III clinical trials in RRMS and progressive MS. Forty relevant trials were identified (RRMS, n = 16; progressive MS, n = 18; other/mixed phenotypes, n = 6). Sustained EDSS worsening, particularly over 3 months, was included as an endpoint in almost all identified trials. Other disability-related endpoints included the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite z-score and scores for the physical component summary of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (36-item) Health Survey. Tests assessing manual dexterity, ambulation, vision and cognition were also employed, and in some trials, composite endpoints were used. However, there was no obvious trend in choice of disability outcome measures over time. Sustained EDSS worsening over short time periods continues to be the most widely used measure of disability progression in pivotal MS trials, despite its well-recognised limitations. A new tool set is needed for use in MS clinical trials that detects the benefit of potential treatments that slow (or reverse) progressive disability.
| S-EPMC6061412 | biostudies-literature