Dataset Information

Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Umbrella clinical trials in precision oncology are designed to tailor therapies to the specific genetic changes within a tumor. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for umbrella clinical trials. The aim of our systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles in cancer umbrella trials testing targeted drugs or a combination of targeted therapy with chemotherapy.

Methods

Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171494). We searched Embase and PubMed for cancer umbrella trials testing targeted agents or a combination of targeted therapies with chemotherapy. We included solid tumor studies published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019. We measured the risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), and the benefit by objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). When possible, data were meta-analyzed.

Results

Of the 6207 records identified, we included 31 sub-trials or arms of nine umbrella trials (N = 1637). The pooled overall ORR was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-25.9). The ORR for targeted therapies in the experimental arms was significantly lower than the ORR for a combination of targeted therapy drugs with chemotherapy: 13.3% vs 39.0%; p = 0.005. The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.9-2.9), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-8.4). The overall drug-related death rate (drug-related grade 5 AEs rate) was 0.8% (95% CI 0.3-1.4), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 AE rate per person was 0.45 (95% CI 0.40-0.50).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that, on average, one in five cancer patients in umbrella trials published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019 responded to a given therapy, while one in 125 died due to drug toxicity. Our findings do not support the expectation of increased patient benefit in cancer umbrella trials. Further studies should investigate whether umbrella trial design and the precision oncology approach improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Strzebonska K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9264503 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as "small sample size, non?randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested." We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting. CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. METHODS:We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. RESULTS:We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months. CONCLUSIONS:We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

Project description:ImportanceSex, age, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) may affect immune response. However, the association of these factors with the survival benefit of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the potential sex, age, and ECOG PS differences of immunotherapy survival benefit in patients with advanced cancer.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 31, 2019.Study selectionPublished randomized clinical trials comparing overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer treated with ICI immunotherapy vs non-ICI control therapy were included.Data extraction and synthesisPooled OS hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI for patients of different sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years) or ECOG PS (0 and ≥1) were calculated separately using a random-effects model, and the heterogeneity between paired estimates was assessed using an interaction test by pooling study-specific interaction HRs. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.Main outcomes and measuresThe difference in survival benefit of ICIs between sex, age (<65 vs ≥65 years), and ECOG PS (0 vs ≥1), as well as the difference stratified by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, and immunotherapy strategy in the intervention arm.ResultsThirty-seven phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials involving 23 760 patients were included. An OS benefit of immunotherapy was found for both men (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81) and women (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88); for both younger (<65 years: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) and older (≥65 years: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) patients; and for both patients with ECOG PS 0 (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90) and PS greater than or equal to 1 (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84). No significant difference of relative benefit from immunotherapy over control therapy was found in patients of different sex (P = .25, I2 = 19.02%), age (P = .94, I2 = 15.57%), or ECOG PS (P = .74, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found in subgroup analyses by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, and immunotherapy strategy in the intervention arm.Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis found no evidence of an association of sex, age (<65 vs ≥65 years), or ECOG PS (0 vs ≥1) with cancer immunotherapy survival benefit. This finding suggests that the use of ICIs in advanced cancer should not be restricted to certain patients in sex, age, or ECOG PS categories.

Project description:BackgroundNovel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.Main bodyWe discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.ConclusionsWe suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.

Project description:BackgroundThe etiologies of chronic neurological diseases, which heavily contribute to global disease burden, remain far from elucidated. Despite available umbrella reviews on single contributing factors or diseases, no study has systematically captured non-purely genetic risk and/or protective factors for chronic neurological diseases.MethodsWe performed a systematic analysis of umbrella reviews (meta-umbrella) published until September 20th, 2018, using broad search terms in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, DARE, and PROSPERO. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this study. Reference lists of the identified umbrella reviews were also screened, and the methodological details were assessed using the AMSTAR tool. For each non-purely genetic factor association, random effects summary effect size, 95% confidence and prediction intervals, and significance and heterogeneity levels facilitated the assessment of the credibility of the epidemiological evidence identified.ResultsWe identified 2797 potentially relevant reviews, and 14 umbrella reviews (203 unique meta-analyses) were eligible. The median number of primary studies per meta-analysis was 7 (interquartile range (IQR) 7) and that of participants was 8873 (IQR 36,394). The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. Mediterranean diet was associated with lower risk of dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), cognitive impairment, stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases in general. In Parkinson disease (PD) and AD/dementia, coffee consumption, and physical activity were protective factors. Low serum uric acid levels were associated with increased risk of PD. Smoking was associated with elevated risk of multiple sclerosis and dementia but lower risk of PD, while hypertension was associated with lower risk of PD but higher risk of dementia. Chronic occupational exposure to lead was associated with higher risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Late-life depression was associated with higher risk of AD and any form of dementia.ConclusionsWe identified several non-genetic risk and protective factors for various neurological diseases relevant to preventive clinical neurology, health policy, and lifestyle counseling. Our findings could offer new perspectives in secondary research (meta-research).