Dataset Information

Factors associated with successful phase III trials for solid tumors: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is known that the success rates of phase III trials for solid cancers are low. The aim of this study was to investigate factors related to trial design and operation that were associated with the probability of the success of phase III trials for solid cancers based on the latest comprehensive data.

Methods

Relevant clinical trials, started between September 2007 and December 2017, were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov. Then, variables related to the selected trials such as types of primary endpoint and duration of trial enrollment were collected from the literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on the collected data, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to find factors associated with the successful results.

Results

Four hundred phase III trials were found eligible for the study. Unsuccessful trials were 207 and successful trials were 193. As a result of multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors that presented a statistically significant relationship were primary endpoint (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.79 [95% CI: 1.59-4.89]), control arm (OR: 3.06 [95% CI: 1.39-6.73]), start year of trial (OR: 3.28 [95% CI: 1.87-5.77]), and duration of trial enrollment (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.60-0.99]).

Conclusion

Type of primary endpoints (time-to-event endpoints other than overall survival), control arm (treatments with lower evidence level, placebo or best supportive care), and duration of trial enrollment (faster enrollment speed) were associated with phase III trial success.

SUBMITTER: Otsuka Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8606338 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Gut microbiome is proved to affect the activity of immunotherapy in certain tumors. However, little is known if there is universal impact on both the treatment response and adverse effects (AEs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across multiple solid tumors, and whether such impact can be modulated by common gut microbiome modifiers, such as antibiotics and diet. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed followed by stringent manual review were performed to identify clinical cohort studies that evaluated the relevance of gut microbiome to ICIs (response and/or AEs, 12 studies), or association of antibiotics with ICIs (17 studies), or impact of diet on gut microbiome (16 studies). Only original studies published in English before April 1st, 2020 were used. Qualified studies identified in the reference were also included. Results: At the phylum level, patients who had enriched abundance in Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia almost universally had better response from ICIs, whereas those who were enriched in Proteobacteria universally presented with unfavorable outcome. Mixed correlations were observed for Bacteroidetes in relating to treatment response. Regarding the AEs, Firmicutes correlated to higher incidence whereas Bacteroidetes were clearly associated with less occurrence. Interestingly, across various solid tumors, majority of the studies suggested a negative association of antibiotic use with clinical response from ICIs, especially within 1-2 month prior to the initiation of ICIs. Finally, we observed a significant correlation of plant-based diet in relating to the enrichment of "ICI-favoring" gut microbiome (P = 0.0476). Conclusions: Gut microbiome may serve as a novel modifiable biomarker for both the treatment response and AEs of ICIs across various solid tumors. Further study is needed to understand the underlying mechanism, minimize the negative impact of antibiotics on ICIs, and gain insight regarding the role of diet so that this important lifestyle factor can be harnessed to improve the therapeutic outcomes of cancer immunotherapy partly through its impact on gut microbiome.

Project description:ObjectiveUnbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.