Survey of modalities of toxicity assessment and reporting in noncomparative prospective studies of chemotherapy in breast cancer

Systematic Review of adverse events reporting in clinical trials leading to approval of targeted therapy and immunotherapy

Aim: Reporting toxicities of targeted therapies (TTs) and immunotherapy in oncology requires special attention. Materials & methods: We identified TTs and immunotherapies approved by the US FDA for solid malignancies in the adult population. Publications were reviewed according to a 24-point score based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance. Results: We identified 81 trials (>45,000 patients). The experimental drug was studied as single agent in 51% of the cases; setting of disease was mainly (95%) advanced/metastatic. Lowest scores in adverse event (AE) description regarded: reporting recurrent/late toxicities and duration of the AEs (>90%), time of occurrence and indication of all-grade AEs (>75%). Conclusion: Suboptimal reporting of AEs in trials leading to approval of TTs and immunotherapy was shown. Improving AE descriptions should be a priority in ongoing trials.

A qualitative study evaluating causality attribution for serious adverse events during early phase oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In early phase oncology trials, novel targeted therapies are increasingly being tested in combination with traditional agents creating greater potential for enhanced and new toxicities. When a patient experiences a serious adverse event (SAE), investigators must determine whether the event is attributable to the investigational drug or not. This study seeks to understand the clinical reasoning, tools used and challenges faced by the researchers who assign causality to SAE's.

METHODS

Thirty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with medical oncologists and trial coordinators at six Canadian academic cancer centres. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Individual interview content analysis was followed by thematic analysis across the interview set.

FINDINGS

Our study found that causality assessment tends to be a rather complex process, often without complete clinical and investigational data at hand. Researchers described using a common processing strategy whereby they gather pertinent information, eliminate alternative explanations, and consider whether or not the study drug resulted in the SAE. Many of the interviewed participants voiced concern that causality assessments are often conducted quickly and tend to be highly subjective. Many participants were unable to identify any useful tools to help in assigning causality and welcomed more objectivity in the overall process.

INTERPRETATION

Attributing causality to SAE's is a complex process. Clinical trial researchers apply a logical system of reasoning, but feel that the current method of assigning causality could be improved. Based on these findings, future research involving the development of a new causality assessment tool specifically for use in early phase oncology clinical trials may be useful.

Dealing With a Deluge of Data: An Assessment of Adverse Event Data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trials

Purpose

Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non–life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume.

Patients and Methods

We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials.

Results

A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial.

Conclusion

The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.

Statistical design in phase II clinical trials and its application in breast cancer

Several statistical designs for phase II studies have been proposed, but they are frequently misunderstood or not applied at all. In this review we describe the major characteristics of the available designs. To investigate the extent to which statistical designs were used in some recent phase II studies, and which designs were the most common, we did a survey of 145 trials involving treatment of breast cancer. Studies selected for the survey were published between 1995 and 1999 in one of seven specific oncology journals (all with impact factor consistently higher than 2). 94 of the studies (64.8%) did not have an identifiable statistical design. However, among the 51 studies with statistical design there was a notable heterogeneity in the type of design applied. We put together a list of factors associated with use of statistical design at univariate analysis. These factors included: referral to a previous phase I study, recent trial start date, private sponsorship, single-agent treatment, and multicentre organisation. Single-agent treatment (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.01-5.51) and multicentre organisation (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.47-7.15) were independently predictive of the presence of statistical design. Publication in journals with high impact factors and short intervals between the start of the study and publication were also correlated with statistical design.