Tumour Burden Reporting in Phase III Clinical Trials of Metastatic Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Randomised phase III clinical trials represent a methodological milestone to select effective drugs against metastatic cancers. In this context, and particularly in the efficacy assessment of biologic drugs, the initial metastatic tumour burden is a strong prognostic factor.Methods
A systematic literature review of randomised, phase III, first-line, clinical trials in metastatic breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, published from 2016 to 2021, was performed. Three groups of variables were collected: identity-, method- (including tumour burden assessment) and outcome-related.Results
Seventy trials were selected. A large portion of studies (41.4%) focused on the effects of biologic agents (signal inhibitors and immuno-therapies). A definition of low-burden disease based predominantly on the number of involved organs was reported in 28.6% of studies. No explicit reference to oligo-metastatic disease was found either in inclusion/exclusion criteria or in final descriptive data analyses. Disease extent, heterogeneously defined, was a stratification factor for randomisation in only 25.7% of studies. In two studies, a significant imbalance between arms in patients with low-burden disease was revealed.Conclusions
Attention to initial tumour burden in designing future clinical trials (including the harmonisation of definitions and the reporting of eventual oligo-metastatic disease, complete estimates of tumour volume, and its consideration as a stratification factor) should be increased.
SUBMITTER: Santorsola M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9264965 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.
| S-EPMC8636814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhase III trials with prospective biomarker validation are essential to drug development in the era of personalized oncology. However, concerns have emerged regarding the design and reporting of phase III trials with prospective biomarker validation.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE for phase III oncology trials with prospective biomarker validation published in high-impact medical journals from 2011 to 2020. Information regarding trial design and reporting were extracted. Descriptive methods were used to summarize the results.ResultsWe identified 45 phase III trials with prospective biomarker validation. There was a trend for increasing use of biomarker validation phase III trials (from 1 trial in 2011 to 12 trials in 2020). For 39 (86.7%) trials, results in biomarker-negative population were either listed as an exploratory subgroup analysis (62.2%) or not mentioned in the methods (24.4%). Twenty-one (46.7%) trials were originally designed without biomarker validation but were then apparently modified to incorporate prospective biomarker validation after trial commencement, albeit only 15 (33.3%) trials reported this change. Treatment effect and primary outcome values in biomarker-negative patients were not reported in 24.4% and 40.0% trials, respectively. For 18 trials with statistically significant results in the overall population, only 7 trials reported a hazard ratio less than 0.8 in the biomarker-negative population.ConclusionsAlthough biomarker validation in phase III trials have been increasingly used in the past decade, issues regarding changes in trial design after commencement without disclosure, underreporting of results in biomarker-negative groups, and recommending treatment in biomarker negative groups despite modest effects require substantial improvement.
| S-EPMC9905966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough biomarkers for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer exist, the benefit patients with RAS mutated tumors derive from established regimens is unclear.MethodsEfficacy of therapeutic strategies available for RAS mutated patients (addition of chemotherapeutic agents and/or anti angiogenic agents) were investigated in fourteen randomized controlled phase III trials at trial level by meta-analysing individual study hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).Results6810 of 10,748 patients (63.3%) were available (48.5% RAS wildtype, 51.5% RAS mutated). Across all treatment lines, additional treatment efficacy (chemotherapy and/or anti angiogenic agents) was significantly smaller in RAS mutated compared to wildtype tumors for OS and PFS. In detail, patients with RAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer derived significant benefit in PFS but not in OS by the addition of either chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agents to the respective comparator. In patients with RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, PFS and OS were improved by the addition of chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agent.ConclusionThe therapeutic benefit of additional substances is less distinct in patients with RAS mutated as compared to RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, especially with regard to OS.
| S-EPMC7324435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells have shown promising efficacy in treatment of hematological malignancies, but its applications in solid tumors need further exploration. In this study, we investigated CAR-T therapy targeting carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)-positive colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with metastases to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Five escalating dose levels (DLs) (1 × 105 to 1 × 108/CAR+/kg cells) of CAR-T were applied in 10 CRC patients. Our data showed that severe adverse events related to CAR-T therapy were not observed. Of the 10 patients, 7 patients who experienced progressive disease (PD) in previous treatments had stable disease after CAR-T therapy. Two patients remained with stable disease for more than 30 weeks, and two patients showed tumor shrinkage by positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and MRI analysis, respectively. Decline of serum CEA level was apparent in most patients even in long-term observation. Furthermore, we observed persistence of CAR-T cells in peripheral blood of patients receiving high doses of CAR-T therapy. Importantly, we observed CAR-T cell proliferation especially in patients after a second CAR-T therapy. Taken together, we demonstrated that CEA CAR-T cell therapy was well tolerated in CEA+ CRC patients even in high doses, and some efficacy was observed in most of the treated patients.
| S-EPMC5417843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Well-designed clinical trials are of great importance in validating novel treatments and ensuring an evidence-based approach for sarcoma. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive landscape of the characteristics of metastatic or advanced sarcoma clinical trials using the substantial resource of the ClincialTrials.gov database. METHODS:We identified 260,755 trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov in the last 20?years, and 277 of them were eligible for inclusion. The baseline characteristics were ascertained for each trial. The trials were systematically reviewed to validate their classification into 96 trials registered before 2008 and 181 trials registered between 2008 and 2017. RESULTS:We found that in the last decade, metastatic and advanced sarcoma trials were predominantly phase II-III studies (p?=?0.048), were more likely to be ?2 arms (17.7% vs 35.3%, respectively; p?=?0.007), and were more likely to use randomized (13.5% vs 30.4%; p?=?0.002) and double-blinded (2.1% vs 9.4%; p?=?0.024) assignment than trials registered before 2008. Furthermore, in the last 10-year period, metastatic sarcoma trials were more likely to be conducted in Asia. Treatment involving target therapy and immunotherapy were more common (71.8% vs 37.5%; p?<?0.001) than in previous years. CONCLUSIONS:Our data showed provocative changes in the sarcoma landscape and demonstrated that the incidence of clinical trials with target therapy and immunotherapy is increasing. These findings emphasize the desperate need for novel strategies, including target therapy and immunotherapy, to improve the outcomes for patients with advanced sarcoma.
| S-EPMC6293634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown.MethodsMedication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups.ResultsSeven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available.ConclusionOne in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.
| S-EPMC8914495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose5-Fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab is more effective than doublets plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, but is not widely used because of concerns about toxicity and lack of predictive biomarkers. This study was designed to explore the role of circulating tumour cell (CTC) count as a biomarker to select patients for therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab.Patients and methodsVISNÚ-1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, metastatic colorectal carcinoma and ≥3 CTC/7.5 mL blood. Patients received bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 165 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 3200 mg/m2) or FOLFOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 then 2400 mg/m2) by intravenous administration every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsThe intention-to-treat population comprised 349 patients (FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab, n=172; FOLFOX-bevacizumab, n=177). Median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI 11.2 to 14.0) with FOLFOXIRI bevacizumab and 9.3 months (95% CI 8.5 to 10.7) with FOLFOX-bevacizumab (stratified HR, 0.64; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82; p=0.0006). Grade≥3 adverse events were more common with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab 85.3% vs 75.1% with FOLFOX-bevacizumab (p=0.0178). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 8 (4.7%) and 6 (3.4%) patients, respectively.ConclusionsFirst-line FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX-bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and ≥3 CTCs at baseline, which indicate a poor prognosis. CTC count may be a useful non-invasive biomarker to assist with the selection of patients for intensive first-line therapy.
| S-EPMC7640586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCirculating tumour DNA (ctDNA) may serve as a measure of tumour burden and a useful tool for non-invasive monitoring of cancer. However, ctDNA is not always detectable in patients at time of diagnosis of metastatic disease. Therefore, there is a need to understand the correlation between ctDNA levels and the patients' overall metabolic tumour burden (MTB).MethodsThirty-two treatment naïve metastatic melanoma patients were included in the study. MTB and metabolic tumour volume (MTV) was measured by 18F-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT). Plasma ctDNA was quantified using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR).ResultsCtDNA was detected in 23 of 32 patients. Overall, a significant correlation was observed between ctDNA levels and MTB (p < 0.001). CtDNA was not detectable in patients with an MTB of ≤10, defining this value as the lower limit of tumour burden that can be detected through ctDNA analysis by ddPCR.ConclusionsWe showed that ctDNA levels measured by ddPCR correlate with MTB in treatment naïve metastatic melanoma patients and observed a limit in tumour size for which ctDNA cannot be detected in blood. Nevertheless, our findings support the use of ctDNA as a non-invasive complementary modality to functional imaging for monitoring tumour burden.
| S-EPMC6038195 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tumour mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a reproducible biomarker to predict immunotherapy response across multiple cancer types. However, a key aspect of TMB measurement that is often overlooked is the source of tissue sample used, which creates a potential for systematic bias. The predominant source is either primary or metastatic tumour tissue. Primary tumours are more heterogeneous and reflect a longer period of tumour evolution, whereas metastases tend to have a more monoclonal structure and potentially different TMB scores. Studies to date measuring TMB have used a heterogeneous set of primary and metastatic tissues, which may explain some of the variability in predictive TMB values across studies. This paper presents data to show that there is a systematic difference whereby metastatic TMB is biased towards higher values than primary TMB (36% higher, paired Wilcoxon, P = 0.0008). However, effectiveness in predicting overall survival during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was found to be equivalent between primary and metastatic TMB. We highlight that lower TMB in primary tissue may be important in cases with borderline primary TMB, where assaying metastatic TMB may lead to a different treatment stratification result. As TMB progresses towards clinical implementation, particularly in classically non-immunogenic tumour types, it is important to have better curated trials with either the source of tissue annotated or a prospective study assessing concordance between paired primary and metastatic tissue.
| S-EPMC9216665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters.Patients and methodsPatient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum.ResultsRAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276).ConclusionsIn the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant.Clinicaltrials.gov numberNCT01183780.
| S-EPMC6336001 | biostudies-literature