Association of National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trial Network Group Studies With Guideline Care and New Drug Indications

Association of albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocytes with clinical stage in cervical cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To determinate the association between of albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocytes (NLR) with clinical stage in cervical cancers.

METHODS

Design a retrospective cross-sectional study of consecutive subjects diagnosed with cervical cancer for the first time. The Bethesda system was used for histological diagnosis and the subjects were stratified with the FIGO system, considering stages IA to IIB as localized; while, IIIA and IVB as advanced stages. Albumin, NLR and lymphocytes were evaluated as inflammatory biomarkers and the cut-off points generated by the ROC curves were albumin < 3 mg/dL, NLR ≥ 2.0 and lymphocytes < 1.2 103/ul. The association was calculated by Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients were analyzed, with mean age of 49.3 ± 14.0 years. Epidermoid cancer was the most frequent in 70.6% and 51.3% were classified as advanced clinical stages. A bivariate analysis showed significant relationships between advanced clinical stages and albumin < 3 mg/dL with OR 5.72 (CI95% 2.62-12.4; p < 0.001); for NLR ≥ 2.0 an OR 2.53 (CI95% 1.34-4.89; p = 0.005) and for lymphocytes < 1.2 103/ul of OR 3.39 (CI95% = 1.73-6.65; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Albumin levels < 3 mg/dL, NLR ≥ 2.0 and lymphocytes < 1.2 103/ul, were associated with advanced stages in subjects with cervical cancer.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Importance

While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol.

Objective

To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings.

Results

The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Spending on Phased Clinical Development of Approved Drugs by the US National Institutes of Health Compared With Industry

Importance

The launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health to advance new cures and address public concern regarding drug prices has raised questions about the roles of government and industry in drug development.

Objectives

To compare National Institutes of Health (NIH) spending on phased clinical development of approved drugs with that by industry.

Design

This cross-sectional study examined NIH funding for published research reporting the results of phased clinical trials of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 and compared the findings with reported industry spending estimates. Data analysis was performed between May 2021 and August 2022 using PubMed data from January 1999 through October 2021 and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results data from January 1999 through December 2020.

Exposures

Drugs approved between 2010 and 2019.

Main Outcome and Measures

National Institutes of Health funding for published research describing applied research on approved drugs, basic research on their biological targets, and phased clinical trials related to drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U tests. All costs were inflation adjusted to 2018.

Results

National Institutes of Health funding for basic or applied research related to 386 of 387 drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 totaled $247.3 billion. Of this amount, $8.1 billion (3.3%) was related to phased clinical development. This funding contributed to 12 340 publications on phased clinical trial results involving 240 of 387 (62.0%) drugs. Average NIH spending was $33.8 million per drug, including $13.9 million per drug for phase 1, $22.2 million per drug for phase 2, and $12.9 million per drug for phase 3 trials. Spending by NIH on phased development represented 9.8% to 10.7% of estimated industry spending, including 24.6% to 25.3% of estimated phase 1, 21.4% to 23.2% of phase 2, and 3.7% to 4.3% of phase 3 costs. Considering 60 products for which estimated industry costs were publicly available, NIH spending on clinical trials was significantly lower than estimated industry spending (sum of averages, $54.9 million per drug; mean difference, $326.0 million; 95% CI, $235.6-$416.4 million; 2-tailed paired t test P < .001). More than 90% of NIH funding came through cooperative agreements or program projects and centers, while 3.3% of NIH funding came through investigator-initiated research projects.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, NIH funding for phased clinical development of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 represented a small fraction of NIH spending on pharmaceutical innovation. This spending focused primarily on early-phase clinical trials and research capacity and was significantly less than estimated industry spending on clinical development. These results may inform the efficient allocation of government funding to advance pharmaceutical innovation.

Do published trial results influence physician prescribing patterns? Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor usage by the United States Ophthalmologists before and after Protocol T study

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical trial publications may influence physician prescribing patterns. The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol T study, published in 2015, examined outcomes of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). This study investigates if the Protocol T 1-year results were associated with changes in prescribing patterns.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anti-VEGF agents have revolutionized treatment of DME by blocking angiogenesis signalled by VEGF. Three commonly used anti-VEGF agents are on-label aflibercept (Eylea, Regeneron) and ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech) and off-label bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech).

SUMMARY

From 2013 to 2018, there was a significant positive trend in the average number of aflibercept injections for any indication ( P  < 0.002). There was no significant trend in the average number of bevacizumab ( P  = 0.09) and ranibizumab ( P  = 0.43) for any indication. The mean proportion of aflibercept injections per provider per year was 0.181, 0.217, 0.311, 0.403, 0.419 and 0.427; each year-by-year comparison was significant (all P  < 0.001), and the largest increase was in 2015, the year of publication of Protocol T 1-year results. These results imply and reinforce that clinical trial publications may have significant effects on ophthalmologist prescribing patterns.

Population, Clinical, and Scientific Impact of National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network Treatment Studies

PURPOSE

In the United States, the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups have conducted publicly funded oncology research for 50 years. The combined impact of all adult network group trials has never been systematically examined.

METHODS

We identified randomized, phase III trials from the adult NCTN groups, reported from 1980 onward, with statistically significant findings for ≥ 1 clinical, time-dependent outcomes. In the subset of trials in which the experimental arm improved overall survival, gains in population life-years were estimated by deriving trial-specific hazard functions and hazard ratios to estimate the experimental treatment benefit and then mapping this trial-level benefit onto the US cancer population using registry and life-table data. Scientific impact was based on citation data from Google Scholar. Federal investment costs per life-year gained were estimated. The results were derived through December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two trials comprised of 108,334 patients were analyzed, representing 29.8% (162/544) of trials conducted. The most common cancers included breast (34), gynecologic (28), and lung (14). The trials were cited 165,336 times (mean, 62.2 citations/trial/year); 87.7% of trials were cited in cancer care guidelines in favor of the recommended treatment. These studies were estimated to have generated 14.2 million (95% CI, 11.5 to 16.5 million) additional life-years to patients with cancer, with projected gains of 24.1 million (95% CI, 19.7 to 28.2 million) life-years by 2030. The federal investment cost per life-year gained through 2020 was $326 in US dollars.

CONCLUSION

NCTN randomized trials have been widely cited and are routinely included in clinical guidelines. Moreover, their conduct has predicted substantial improvements in overall survival in the United States for patients with oncologic disease, suggesting they have contributed meaningfully to this nation's health. These findings demonstrate the critical role of government-sponsored research in extending the lives of patients with cancer.

Creating and Implementing a Principal Investigator Tool Kit for Enhancing Accrual to Late Phase Clinical Trials: Development and Usability Study

Background

Accrual to oncology clinical trials remains a challenge, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. For late phase clinical trials funded by the National Cancer Institute, the development of these research protocols is a resource-intensive process; however, mechanisms to optimize patient accrual after trial activation are underdeveloped across the National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN). Low patient accrual can lead to the premature closure of clinical trials and can ultimately delay the availability of new, potentially life-saving therapies in oncology.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to formally create an easily implemented tool kit of resources for investigators of oncology clinical trials within the NCTN, specifically the NRG Oncology cooperative group, in order to optimize patient accrual.

Methods

NRG Oncology sought to formally develop a tool kit of resources to use at specific time points during the lifetime of NRG Oncology clinical trials. The tools are clearly described and involve the facilitation of engagement of the study principal investigator with the scientific and patient advocate community during the planning, activation, and accrual periods. Social media tools are also leveraged to enhance such engagement. The principal investigator (PI) tool kit was created in 2019 and thereafter piloted with the NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 phase II or III trial in small-cell lung cancer. The PI tool kit was developed by the NRG Oncology Protocol Operations Management committee and was tested with the NRG/Alliance LU005 randomized trial within the NCTN.

Results

NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 has seen robust enrollment, currently 127% of the projected accrual. Importantly, many of the tool kit elements are already being used in ongoing NRG Oncology trials, with 56% of active NRG trials using at least one element of the PI tool kit and all in-development trials offered the resource. This underscores the feasibility and potential benefits of deploying the PI tool kit across all NRG Oncology trials moving forward.

Conclusions

While clinical trial accrual can be challenging, the PI tool kit has been shown to augment accrual in a low-cost and easily implementable fashion. It could be widely and consistently deployed across the NCTN to improve accrual in oncology clinical trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03811002

Patterns of Scientific and Clinical Impact in Cancer Randomized Clinical Trials

This cohort study examines whether randomized clinical trials of cancer treatment with negative findings that inform cancer care guidelines are recognized for their scientific relevance by the research community.

Informatics in Medical Product Regulation: The Right Drug at the Right Dose for the Right Patient

This chapter describes the role of regulatory medical product review in furthering precision medicine. Efficient data processing and appropriate analyses are needed to synthesize information and provide directions for use in a medical product label. We describe opportunities and challenges in outcome assessment through informatics, as bioengineered therapeutics are increasingly developed for the unmet needs of molecularly defined diseases. Data submission requirements and analytic principles are outlined, and regulatory resources and foundational law and statute are cited for the reader.

Perspectives on emerging technologies, personalised medicine, and clinical research for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean

Challenges of health systems in Latin America and the Caribbean include accessibility, inequity, segmentation, and poverty. These challenges are similar in different countries of the region and transcend national borders. The increasing digital transformation of health care holds promise of more precise interventions, improved health outcomes, increased efficiency, and ultimately reduced health-care costs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the adoption of digital health tools is in early stages and the quality of cancer registries, electronic health records, and structured databases are problematic. Cancer research and innovation in the region are limited due to inadequate academic resources and translational research is almost fully dependent on public funding. Regulatory complexity and extended timelines jeopardise the potential improvement in participation in international studies. Emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, big data, and cancer research represent an opportunity to address the health-care challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean collectively, by optimising national capacities, sharing and comparing best practices, and transferring scientific and technical capabilities.

Editorial: Global Regulatory Initiatives Deliver Accelerated Approval of the First Bispecific Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the number of completed clinical trials, particularly in oncology. Between 80–85% of all lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and of these, between 2–3% have an EGFR exon 20 insertion, which is associated with increased cell proliferation, metastasis, and a lack of response to chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Until this year, there were no available targeted therapies for advanced NSCLC with this genetic subtype. However, in May 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant^®), a bispecific monoclonal antibody, targeting activating and resistant EGFR and MET mutations and amplifications. This FDA approval was for adult patients with locally advanced metastatic NSCLC, with disease progression on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The FDA also approved the Guardant360^® companion diagnostic, a next-generation sequencing platform for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), which is a liquid biopsy assay. In 2019, Project Orbis was launched by the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence as a global collaborative review program to facilitate rapid global access for patients to innovative cancer therapies. This Editorial aims to highlight how global regulatory initiatives from the FDA have delivered accelerated approval of the first bispecific therapeutic monoclonal antibody, amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant^®), and a companion diagnostic for patients with advanced NSCLC with an EGFR exon 20 insertion.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California

BACKGROUND

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Exploring new uses for existing drugs: innovative mechanisms to fund independent clinical research

BACKGROUND

Finding new therapeutic uses for existing medicines could lead to safe, affordable and timely new treatment options for patients with high medical needs. However, due to a lack of economic incentives, pharmaceutical developers are rarely interested to invest in research with approved medicines, especially when they are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. Consequently, potential new uses for these medicines are mainly studied in independent clinical trials initiated and led by researchers from academia, research institutes, or collaborative groups. Yet, additional financial support is needed to conduct expensive phase III clinical trials to confirm the results from exploratory research.

METHODS

In this study, scientific and grey literature was searched to identify and evaluate new mechanisms for funding clinical trials with repurposed medicines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 European stakeholders with expertise in clinical research, funding mechanisms and/or drug repurposing between November 2018 and February 2019 to consider the future perspectives of applying new funding mechanisms.

RESULTS

Traditional grant funding awarded by government and philanthropic organisations or companies is well known and widely implemented in all research fields. In contrast, only little research has focused on the application potential of newer mechanisms to fund independent clinical research, such as social impact bonds, crowdfunding or public-private partnerships. Interviewees stated that there is a substantial need for additional financial support in health research, especially in areas where there is limited commercial interest. However, the implementation of new funding mechanisms is facing several practical and financial challenges, such as a lack of expertise and guidelines, high transaction costs and difficulties to measure health outcomes. Furthermore, interviewees highlighted the need for increased collaboration and centralisation at a European and international level to make clinical research more efficient and reduce the need for additional funding.

CONCLUSIONS

New funding mechanisms to support clinical research may become more important in the future but the unresolved issues identified in the current study warrant further exploration.

Economic Evaluations in National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Network Cancer Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Amid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network.

METHODS

We investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs.

RESULTS

Among 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Few economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.

Representativeness of Black Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Compared With Pharmaceutical Companies

Background

Many clinical trials supporting new drug applications underrepresent minority patients. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trial’s Network (NCTN) have greater outreach to community sites, potentially allowing better representation. We compared the representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company–sponsored cancer clinical trials with NCTN trials and with the US cancer population.

Methods

We established a large cohort of study publications representing the results of trials that supported new US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals from 2008 to 2018. NCTN trial data were from the SWOG Cancer Research Network. US cancer population rates were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results survey data. We compared the proportion of Black patients by enrollment year for each cancer type and overall. Tests of proportions were used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

A total 358 trials (pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 85; SWOG trials, 273) comprised of 93 825 patients (pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 46 313; SWOG trials, 47 512) for 15 cancer types were analyzed. Overall, the proportion of Black patients was 2.9% for pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials, 9.0% for SWOG trials, and 12.1% for the US cancer population (P < .001 for each pairwise comparison). These findings were generally consistent across individual cancer types.

Conclusions

The poor representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials supporting new drug applications could result in the use of new drugs with little data about efficacy or side effects in this key population. Moreover, because pharmaceutical company–sponsored trials test the newest available therapies, limited access to these trials represents a disparity in access to potential breakthrough therapies.

Barriers to Participation in Therapeutic Clinical Trials as Perceived by Community Oncologists

PURPOSE

Despite considerable research on the barriers to enrollment in cancer therapeutic trials, few studies have elicited barriers from the perspective of community physicians, who provide the majority of cancer care. The purpose of this study was to characterize barriers to and facilitators of cancer therapeutic trials as perceived by oncologists in community practices.

METHODS

Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with oncologists at six community sites affiliated with City of Hope National Medical Center from March to June 2018. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, 4 (20%) were women, 13 (65%) had > 10 years of practice experience, and 16 (80%) reported that < 5% of their patients were enrolled in a therapeutic trial. Participants identified four system-level barriers: lack of appropriate trials for community-based settings, insufficient infrastructure support, restrictive eligibility criteria, and financial limitations; three physician-level barriers: lack of awareness of available trials, lack of knowledge of trial details, and lack of time; and two patient-level barriers: patient burden and negative beliefs/attitudes toward research. Efforts aimed to increase trial availability, clinical trial support personnel, and physician knowledge were identified as major facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Community oncologists face numerous complex, multifaceted barriers to cancer therapeutic trial enrollment. Although expanding clinical research beyond the academic setting allows access to a larger and more diverse patient population, increasing generalizability and relevance of trial findings, there remains a substantial need for new strategies to improve cancer research delivery in the community.

Association of Patient Demographic Characteristics and Insurance Status With Survival in Cancer Randomized Clinical Trials With Positive Findings

IMPORTANCE

Few new treatments tested in phase 3 cancer randomized clinical trials show an overall survival benefit. Although understanding whether the benefits are consistent among all patient groups is critical for informing guideline care, individual trials are designed to assess the benefits of experimental treatments among all patients and are too small to reliably determine whether treatment benefits apply to demographic or insurance subgroups.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine whether positive treatment effects in cancer randomized clinical trials apply to specific demographic or insurance subgroups.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study of pooled patient-level data from 10 804 patients in SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical treatment trials reported from 1985 onward with superior overall survival for those receiving experimental treatment. Patients were enrolled from 1984 to 2012. Maximum follow-up was 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Interaction tests were used to assess whether hazard ratios (HRs) for death comparing standard group vs experimental group treatments were associated with age (≥65 vs <65 years), race/ethnicity (minority vs nonminority populations), sex, or insurance status among patients younger than 65 years (Medicaid or no insurance vs private insurance) in multivariable Cox regression frailty models. Progression- or relapse-free survival was also examined. Data analyses were conducted from August 2019 to February 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 19 trials including 10 804 patients were identified that reported superior overall survival for patients randomized to experimental treatment. Patients were predominantly younger than 65 years (67.3%) and female (66.3%); 11.4% were black patients, and 5.7% were Hispanic patients. There was evidence of added survival benefits associated with receipt of experimental therapy for all groups except for patients with Medicaid or no insurance (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.97-1.56; P = .09) compared with those with private insurance (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.44-1.92; P < .001; P = .03 for interaction). Receipt of experimental treatment was associated with reduced added overall survival benefits in patients 65 years or older (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; P < .001) compared with patients younger than 65 years (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.30-1.53; P < .001; P = .01 for interaction), although both older and younger patients appeared to strongly benefit from receipt of experimental treatment. The progression- or relapse-free survival HRs did not differ by age, sex, or race/ethnicity but differed between patients with Medicaid or no insurance (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.64; P = .01) vs private insurance (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97; P < .001; P = .03 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with Medicaid or no insurance may have smaller added benefits from experimental therapies compared with standard treatments in clinical trials. A better understanding of the quality of survivorship care that patients with suboptimal insurance receive, including supportive care and posttreatment care, could help establish how external factors may affect outcomes for these patients.

Patient burden and clinical advances associated with postapproval monotherapy cancer drug trials: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5 years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8 years.

RESULTS

Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8 years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.