Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades

Improving access to cancer clinical research in Brazil: recent advances and new opportunities. Expert opinions from the 4th CURA meeting, São Paulo, 2023

Clinical research is the cornerstone of improvements in cancer care. However, it has been conducted predominantly in high-income countries with few clinical trials available in Brazil and other low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). Of note, less than one-third of registered clinical trials addressing some of the most commonly diagnosed cancers (breast, lung and cervical) recruited patients from LMIC in the last years. The Institute Project CURA promoted the fourth CURA meeting, discussing barriers to cancer clinical research and proposing potential solutions. A meeting was held in São Paulo, Brazil, in June 2023 with representatives from different sectors: Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), National Commission of Ethics in Research (CONEP), non-governmental organisations, such as the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC), Contract Research Organisations, pharmaceutical companies and investigators. A total of 16 experts pointed out achievements as shortening the time of regulatory processes involving Anvisa and CONEP, development of staff training programs, maintenance of the National Program of Oncological Attention (PRONON), and the foundation of qualified centres in North and Northeast Brazilian regions. Participants also highlighted the need to be more competitive in the field, which requires optimising ongoing policies and implementing new strategies as decentralisation of clinical research centres, public awareness campaigns, community-centered approaches, collaborations and partnerships, expansion of physicians-directed policies, exploring the role of the steering committee. Active and consistent reporting of the initiatives might help to propagate ongoing advances, increasing Brazilian participation in clinical cancer research. Engagement of all players is crucial to maintain continuous progress with further improvements in critical points including regulatory timelines and increments in qualified human resources which aligned with new educational initiatives focused on physicians and the general population will expand access to cancer clinical trials in Brazil.

Tumor-agnostic baskets to N-of-1 platform trials and real-world data: Transforming precision oncology clinical trial design

Choosing the right drug(s) for the right patient via advanced genomic sequencing and multi-omic interrogation is the sine qua non of precision cancer medicine. Traditional cancer clinical trial designs follow well-defined protocols to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies in patient groups, usually identified by their histology/tissue of origin of their malignancy. In contrast, precision medicine seeks to optimize benefit in individual patients, i.e., to define who benefits rather than determine whether the overall group benefits. Since cancer is a disease driven by molecular alterations, innovative trial designs, including biomarker-defined tumor-agnostic basket trials, are driving ground-breaking regulatory approvals and deployment of gene- and immune-targeted drugs. Molecular interrogation further reveals the disruptive reality that advanced cancers are extraordinarily complex and individually distinct. Therefore, optimized treatment often requires drug combinations and N-of-1 customization, addressed by a new generation of N-of-1 trials. Real-world data and structured master registry trials are also providing massive datasets that are further fueling a transformation in oncology. Finally, machine learning is facilitating rapid discovery, and it is plausible that high-throughput computing, in silico modeling, and 3-dimensional printing may be exploitable in the near future to discover and design customized drugs in real time.

Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with cancer are treated with local therapy (LT), the proportion of late-phase clinical trials investigating local therapeutic interventions is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion, characteristics, and trends of phase 3 cancer clinical trials assessing the therapeutic value of LT over time.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of interventional randomized controlled trials in oncology published from 2002 through 2020 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trends and characteristics of LT trials were compared to all other trials.

RESULTS

Of 1877 trials screened, 794 trials enrolling 584,347 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 27 trials (3%) included a primary randomization assessing LT compared with 767 trials (97%) investigating systemic therapy or supportive care. Annual increase in the number of LT trials (slope [m] = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.39; p < .001) was outpaced by the increase of trials testing systemic therapy or supportive care (m = 7.57; 95% CI, 6.03-9.11; p < .001). LT trials were more often sponsored by cooperative groups (22 of 27 [81%] vs. 211 of 767 [28%]; p < .001) and less often sponsored by industry (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 609 of 767 [79%]; p < .001). LT trials were more likely to use overall survival as primary end point compared to other trials (13 of 27 [48%] vs. 199 of 767 [26%]; p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary late-phase oncology research, LT trials are increasingly under-represented, under-funded, and evaluate more challenging end points compared to other modalities. These findings strongly argue for greater resource allocation and funding mechanisms for LT clinical trials.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Most people who have cancer receive treatments directed at the site of their cancer, such as surgery or radiation. We do not know, however, how many trials test surgery or radiation compared to drug treatments (that go all over the body). We reviewed trials testing the most researched strategies (phase 3) completed between 2002 and 2020. Only 27 trials tested local treatments like surgery or radiation compared to 767 trials testing other treatments. Our study has important implications for funding research and understanding cancer research priorities.

Allocation of authorship and patient enrollment among global clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly global in scope. Whether authorship is equitably shared between investigators from high-income countries (HIC) and low-middle/upper-middle incomes countries (LMIC/UMIC) is not well described. The authors conducted this study to understand the allocation of authorship and patient enrollment across all oncology RCTs conducted globally.

METHODS

A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of phase 3 RCTs (published 2014-2017) that were led by investigators in HIC and recruited patients in LMIC/UMIC.

FINDINGS

During 2014-2017, 694 oncology RCTs were published; 636 (92%) were led by investigators from HIC. Among these HIC-led trials, 186 (29%) enrolled patients in LMIC/UMIC. One-third (33%, 62 of 186) of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC. Forty percent (74 of 186) of RCTs reported patient enrollment by country; in 50% (37 of 74) of these trials, LMIC/UMIC contributed <15% of patients. The relationship between enrollment and authorship proportion is very strong and is comparable between LMIC/UMIC and HIC (Spearman's ρ LMIC/UMIC 0.824, p < .001; HIC 0.823, p < .001). Among the 74 trials that report country enrollment, 34% (25 of 74) have no authors from LMIC/UMIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Among trials that enroll patients in HIC and LMIC/UMIC, authorship appears to be proportional to patient enrollment. This finding is limited by the fact that more than half of RCTs do not report enrollment by country. Moreover, there are important outliers as a significant proportion of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC despite enrolling patients in these countries. The findings in this study reflect a complex global RCT ecosystem that still underserves cancer control outside high-income settings.

Pharmaceutical industry relationships with oncologists in sub-Saharan Africa

Health-care systems in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be new markets for pharmaceutical companies. This perception is particularly relevant within oncology, as the pharmaceutical industry has changed strategic priorities in the past 10 years to focus on cancer. Since the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies have used advertisements, sample drugs, gifts, paid speaking engagements, advisory boards, and trips to conferences to influence clinical practice and policy. A large amount of literature describes the commonness of these practices and their effects on the behaviour of doctors. However, these data come almost exclusively from high-income countries. Industry-doctor relationships are increasingly common in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income and middle-income countries. Although there are undoubtedly risks of industry engagement in low-income and middle-income countries, many programmes with educational, research, and clinical value would not occur in these countries without industry support. Thus, what is known about these relationships in high-income countries will not necessarily apply in low-income and middle-income countries. There is a need for widespread discussion about industry-oncologist interactions across the African continent and context-specific data to understand the potential risks and benefits of these relationships.

Current Scenario of Clinical Cancer Research in Latin America and the Caribbean

In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), progress has been made in some national and regional cancer control initiatives, which have proved useful in reducing diagnostic and treatment initiation delays. However, there are still significant gaps, including a lack of oncology clinical trials. In this article, we will introduce the current status of the region's clinical research in cancer, with a special focus on academic cancer research groups and investigator-initiated research (IIR) initiatives. Investigators in LAC have strived to improve cancer research despite drawbacks and difficulties in funding, regulatory timelines, and a skilled workforce. Progress has been observed in the representation of this region in clinical trial development and conduct, as well as in scientific productivity. However, most oncology trials in the region have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, highlighting the need for increased funding from governments and private foundations. Improvements in obtaining and/or strengthening the LAC cancer research group's financing will provide opportunities to address cancer therapies and management shortcomings specific to the region. Furthermore, by including this large, ethnic, and genetically diverse population in the world's research agenda, one may bridge the gap in knowledge regarding the applicability of results of clinical trials now mainly conducted in populations from the Northern Hemisphere.

Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients

OBJECTIVE

This study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions.

METHODS

Video-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences.

CONCLUSION

These plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.

Relationship between Clonorchis sinensis Infection and Cholangiocarcinoma in Korea

This study provides an overview of the current status of clonorchiasis and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and their relationship in Korea during 2012–2020. Data were obtained from the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service of Korea. Cluster, trend, and correlation analyses were performed. Gyeongsangnam-do and Seoul had the highest average number of cases (1,026 and 4,208) and adjusted rate (306 and 424) for clonorchiasis and CCA, respectively. The most likely clusters (MLC) for clonorchiasis and CCA were Busan/Gyeongsangnam-do/Ulsan/Daegu/Gyeongsangbuk-do (Relative Risk; RR=4.55, Likelihood Ratio; LLR=9,131.115) joint cluster and Seoul (RR=2.29, LLR=7,602.472), respectively. The MLC for clonorchiasis was in the southeastern part of Korea, while that for CCA was in the southern part. Clonorchiasis showed a decreasing trend in the southeastern districts, while increased in the southwestern districts. Cities in the central region had a decreasing trend, while the western districts had an increasing trend. In most adults (30–59), infection rate of clonorchiasis showed a significant decrease until 2018, while thereafter increased, although not significant. CCA showed a sharply decreasing tendency. The incidence of clonorchiasis and CCA were positively correlated. In general, the correlation was weak (r=0.39, P<0.001), but it was strongly positive around the 4 river basins (r=0.74, P<0.001). This study might provide an analytic basis for developing an effective system against clonorchiasis and CCA.

Availability of Results of Trials Studying Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma over the Past 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal cancer with few therapeutic options. Availability of results is a crucial step in interventional research. Our aim was to evaluate results availability for trials in patients with PDAC and explore associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study and searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for trials evaluating PDAC management with a primary completion date between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2020. Then, we searched for results submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov and/or published. Our primary outcome was the proportion of PDAC trials with available results: submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov (either publicly available or undergoing quality control check) and/or published in a full-text article. The association of predefined trial characteristics with results availability was assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 551 trials of which 386 (70%) had available results. The cumulative percentage of trials with available results was 21% (95% CI, 18-25%) at 12 months after the primary completion date, 44% (95% CI, 30-48%) at 24 months and 57% (95% CI, 53-61%) at 36 months. Applicable clinical trials, required to comply with the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801 and its final rule on reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, were more likely to have available results over time (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.72-2.63], P < .001). Industry-funded, small sample size, and terminated trials were less likely to have available results. Other trial characteristics showed no association with results availability.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight a waste in interventional research studying PDAC.

Participation of Lower and Upper Middle-Income Countries in Clinical Trials Led by High-Income Countries

Importance

Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research.

Objective

To describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC).

Results

Among the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study.

Tumour Burden Reporting in Phase III Clinical Trials of Metastatic Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

The initial tumour burden is a strong and well-known prognostic factor in oncology. A systematic review was performed to examine if and how the initial tumour burden is reported in phase III clinical trials in the most frequent and deadly cancers. Seventy trials were selected, which mostly included biologic agents. The identification of low-burden metastatic disease was performed in 28.6% of studies; it 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. Our findings emphasise the need for the better assessment of tumour burden in clinical trials.

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.

Availability of results of interventional studies assessing colorectal cancer from 2013 to 2020

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent cancers worldwide. Our aim was to evaluate the availability of results of interventional studies studying CRC. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for all interventional studies on CRC management in adults completed or terminated between 01/01/2013 and 01/01/2020. To identify results, we searched for results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article. Our primary outcome was the proportion of CRC interventional studies with available results (i.e. posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article). Secondary outcomes were 1) median time between primary completion and earliest date of results availability, 2) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results available over time 3) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry over time and 4) the percentage of results available in open access. We identified 763 eligible interventional studies in ClinicalTrials.gov, which included 679 198 patients. Of these, 286 (37%) trials, including 270 845 (40%) patients, did not have any results available. Median time for results availability was 32.6 months (IQ 16.1-unreached). The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with available results was 17% at 12 months, 39% at 24 months and 55% at 36 months. Results were more likely available for trials that were randomized, completed, had one trial site in the United States, and with mixed funding. The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov was 2% at 12 months. Results were available in open access for 420 (420/477 = 88%) trials. Our results highlight an important waste in research for interventional studies studying CRC.

Randomized Controlled Trials in Lung, Gastrointestinal, and Breast Cancers: An Overview of Global Research Activity

Background: In this study, we compared and contrasted design characteristics, results, and publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and breast cancer. Methods: A PUBMED search identified phase III RCTs of anticancer therapy in GI, lung, and breast cancer published globally during the period 2014−2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and the Kruskal−Wallis test were used to compare RCT design, results, and output across the cancer sites. Results: A total of 352 RCTs were conducted on GI (36%), lung (29%), and breast (35%) cancer. Surrogate endpoints were used in 55% of trials; this was most common in breast trials (72%) compared to GI (47%) and lung trials (43%, p < 0.001). Breast trials more often met their primary endpoint (54%) than GI (41%) and lung trials (41%) (p = 0.024). When graded with the ESMO-MCBS, lung cancer trials (50%, 15/30) were more likely to meet the threshold for substantial benefit. GI trials were published in journals with a substantially lower impact factor (IF; median IF 13) than lung (median IF 21) and breast cancer trials (median IF 21) (p = 0.038). Conclusions: Important differences in RCT design and output exist between the three major cancer sites. Use of surrogate endpoints and the magnitude of benefit associated with new treatments vary substantially across cancer sites.

Generalizability of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The generalizability of outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology is a frequent concern. Given the prevalence and multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, understanding the generalizability of rectal cancer RCTs is critical to surgical oncologists.

METHODS

An exhaustive literature review identified 100 non-metastatic rectal cancer RCTs published in English over the past 10 years investigating surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. In order to evaluate the representativeness of these RCTs compared to the USA and each continent's rectal cancer populations, demographic characteristics were stratified by surgical versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) trial and by continent then compared with the National Cancer Database and CANCER TODAY using chi-squared and Welch's t-tests.

RESULTS

Of the 100 trials identified, 65% enrolled significantly younger patients, and 38% enrolled a significantly greater proportion of males than the US rectal cancer population. These demographic differences were more prominent among CRT trials than surgical trials. Half of all trials enrolled patients who were on average more than 7 years younger and enrolled a 5% greater proportion of males than their respective continental rectal cancer populations. Patients enrolled in trials had more advanced cancers than their corresponding continental populations. Sociodemographic data was rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

Patients enrolled in trials were younger, predominantly male, and had advanced stage cancer when compared to the rectal cancer population. Sociodemographic variables are underreported, further limiting equal participation in clinical trials. Future rectal cancer RCTs should strive to recruit representative samples. To enhance recruitment of women and underrepresented minorities, tailored recruitment strategies must be implemented.

Risks and benefits of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticancer drugs without active comparators in patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment options are debated. We aimed to quantify the safety and the efficacy of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients who have exhausted standard of care treatments from RCTs without active comparators.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to preferred reporting Items for systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42021243968). A systematic literature search of English language publications from January 1, 2000, to January 7, 2021, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials included all RCTs evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced solid tumors with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. RCTs performed in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant or maintenance settings were excluded, as were clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in combination with radiotherapy. Two authors (C.M.B. and E.C.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data from published reports were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlations between severe toxicity and efficacy was assessed using R² measures.Findings: Of 3551 studies screened, 128 eligible trials were found involving 47,432 patients. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0·58 [95%CI: 0·53-0·63] and 0·82 [95%CI: 0·78-0·85]. The absolute benefits however were limited with PFS and OS gains of 2·1 and 0·5 months. The absolute excesses in all grade, severe grade III, IV and V (death) adverse events between the two arms were +13·9%, 10·2%, and +0·5%. A weak correlation was measured between the excess of severe toxicity and efficacy (all R² < 0·2).Interpretation: Anticancer drugs evaluated in RCTs against no active treatment benefited trial participants. Severe toxicity did not significantly correlate with efficacy.

FUNDING

None.

Industry Funding of Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials: Implications for Design, Results and Interpretation

AIMS

Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014-2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs.

RESULTS

The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support.

Robustness and pragmatism of the evidence supporting the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of follicular lymphoma

Background: Results of randomized clinical trials may not be entirely applicable to clinical practice. The present manuscript aims to explore the pragmatism and robustness of the evidence that supports the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) follicular lymphoma (FL) guidelines.Methods & design: Analysis of all trials used to support positive, therapeutic, oncological recommendations in the 2020 ESMO FL guidelines. Predefined data points were extracted from each trial. Pragmatism was assessed by means of the PRECIS-2 tool, the difference in overall survival in the interventions compared and the source of funding. Robustness was assessed by means of the fragility index and the p value.Results: 28 trials were included. The full protocol or a protocol summary was provided for 12 (43%). Based on the PRECIS-2 domains, trials were considered pragmatic in organization, analysis and flexibility and explanatory in eligibility. Robustness was high, with 4/24 (17%) trials with p values between 0.05 and 0.005 and a median fragility index of 18.Conclusions: Results of trials to support ESMO recommendations in FL were robust. Pragmatism was high in some domains but modest to low in others and the pattern was similar across trials. Transparency in the publication of trial protocols was suboptimal.

Factors Associated With Age Disparities Among Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

Importance

Seminal investigation 2 decades ago alerted the oncology community to age disparities in participation in cooperative group trials; less is known about whether these disparities persist in industry-funded research.

Objective

To characterize the age disparities among trial enrollees on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of common cancers in clinical oncology and identify factors associated with wider age imbalances.

Data Sources

Phase 3 clinical oncology RCTs were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov.

Study Selection

Multiarm RCTs assessing a therapeutic intervention for patients with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer (the 4 most common cancer disease sites) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial screening and parameter identification were independently performed by 2 individuals. Data were analyzed in 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The difference in median age (DMA) between the trial participant median age and the population-based disease-site-specific median age was determined for each trial.

Results

Three hundred two trials met inclusion criteria. The trials collectively enrolled 262 354 participants; 249 trials (82.5%) were industry-funded. For all trials, the trial median age of trial participants was a mean of 6.49 years younger than the population median age (95% CI, -7.17 to -5.81 years; P < .001). Age disparities were heightened among industry-funded trials compared with non-industry-funded trials (mean DMA, -6.84 vs -4.72 years; P = .002). Enrollment criteria restrictions based on performance status or age cutoffs were associated with age disparities; however, industry-funded trials were not more likely to use these enrollment restrictions than non-industry-funded trials. Age disparities were also larger among trials that evaluated a targeted systemic therapy and among lung cancer trials. Linear regression modeling revealed a widening gap between trial and population median ages over time at a rate of -0.19 years annually (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.01 years; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

Age disparities between trial participants and the incident disease population are pervasive across trials and appear to be increasing over time. Industry sponsorship of trials is associated with heightened age imbalances among trial participants. With an increasing role of industry funding among cancer trials, efforts to understand and address age disparities are necessary to ensure generalizability of trial results as well as equity in trial access.

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology.

Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology

IMPORTANCE

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends.

RESULTS

The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials

Canada has a long tradition of leading practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Here, we describe methodology, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs with Canadian involvement compared to RCTs from other high-income countries (HICs). A literature search identified all RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies published 2014–2017. RCTs were classified based on the country affiliation of first authors. The study cohort included 636 HIC-led RCTs; 155 (24%) had Canadian authors. Three-quarters (112/155, 72%) of Canadian RCTs were conducted in the palliative setting, compared to two thirds (299/481, 62%) of RCTs from other HICs (p = 0.022). Canadian RCTs were more likely than those from other HICs to be supported by industry (85% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). The proportion of positive Canadian trials that met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit was comparable to RCTs without Canadian authors (29% vs. 32%, p = 0.137). Thirteen percent (20/155) of all Canadian trials were affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Canada plays a meaningful role in the global cancer research ecosystem but is overly reliant on industry support. The very low proportion of trials that identify a new treatment with substantial clinical benefit is worrisome. A renewed investment in cancer clinical trials is needed in Canada.

Application of Value Frameworks to the Design of Clinical Trials: the Canadian Cancer Trials Group Experience

BACKGROUND

Use of value framework thresholds in the design of clinical trials may increase the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that identify clinically meaningful advances for patients. Existing frameworks have not been applied to the research output of a cooperative cancer trials group. We apply value frameworks to the RCT output of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG).

METHODS

Statistical design, study characteristics, and results of all published phase III trials of CCTG were abstracted. We applied the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Net Health Benefit (ASCO-NHB) to study results and the statistical power calculations to identify the proportion of all trials that were designed to detect a substantial clinical benefit.

RESULTS

During 1979-2017, CCTG published 113 phase III trials; 52.2% (59 of 113) of these trials were positive. Half (50.4%, 57 of 113) of trials were conducted in the palliative setting. In 37.2% (42 of 113) of trials the primary endpoint was overall survival; DFS or PFS was used in 38.9% (44 of 113) of trials. The ESMO-MCBS could be applied to the power calculation for 69 trials; 73.9% (51 of 69) of these trials were designed to detect an effect size that could meet ESMO-MCBS thresholds for substantial benefit. Among the 51 positive trials for which the ESMO-MCBS could be applied, 41.1% (21 of 51) met thresholds for substantial benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CCTG phase III trials were designed to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome, although less than half of positive trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Application of value frameworks to the design of clinical trials is practical and may improve research efficiency and treatment options for patients.

An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries

Importance

The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden.

Objectives

To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs.

Results

The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Incremental Costs, Effectiveness, or Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Therapies in Breast Cancer Based on Claims Data: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Large secondary databases, such as those containing insurance claims data, are increasingly being used to compare the effects and costs of treatments in routine clinical practice. Despite their appeal, however, caution must be exercised when using these data. In this study, we aimed to identify and assess the methodological quality of studies that used claims data to compare the effectiveness, costs, or cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language publications and assessed the methodological quality using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number CRD42018103992.

RESULTS

We identified 1251 articles, of which 106 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States (74%) and Taiwan (9%) and were based on claims data sets (35%) or claims data linked to cancer registries (58%). Furthermore, most included large samples (mean 17 130 patients) and elderly patients, and they covered various outcomes (eg, survival, adverse events, resource use, and costs). Key methodological shortcomings were the lack of information on relevant confounders, the risk of immortal time bias, and the lack of information on the validity of outcomes. Only a few studies performed sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Many comparative studies of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness have been published in recent decades based on claims data, and the number of publications has increased over time. Despite the availability of guidelines to improve quality, methodological issues persist and are often inappropriately addressed or reported.

Unfinished business: Terminated cancer trials and the relevance of treatment intent, sponsors and intervention types

The aim of the study was to report on the association of trial sponsors with intervention type, treatment intent, recruitment success and reasons to terminate cancer trials. The ClinicalTrials database was searched for interventional Phase 3 cancer trials (01/2006-05/2017). Noncancer studies and ongoing studies were excluded, permanently suspended studies were counted as terminated. Trials were stratified according to sponsors (industry/nonindustry), intervention type, setting (curative/palliative) and intent of intervention (curative/symptom-control/life-extending). We identified 345 terminated trials and 1137 completed studies as a control group. The frequency of premature termination did not differ significantly between sponsors. Time to termination was shorter but recruitment per month prior to termination was higher in industry-sponsored studies (7.0 vs 2.2 patients/month; P < .001). Drug interventions were more common in industry-sponsored, all other interventions in nonindustry-sponsored settings (P < .001). Life-extending palliative interventions occurred more frequently, symptom-control interventions in a curative setting less frequently in industry-sponsored trials (both P < .001). Intervention, setting and intent were not associated with termination in industry-sponsored trials. In nonindustry-sponsored trials, the frequency of drug interventions and life-extending (noncurative) interventions were increased in terminated trials (both P < .05); symptom-control interventions in curative settings occurred more frequently in completed studies. Industry-sponsored trials were more often terminated due to toxicity/inefficacy while lack of accrual occurred more frequently in nonindustry-sponsored trials (P < .01). Interventions, treatment setting/intent and reasons for termination differed between sponsor types. In nonindustry-sponsored trials, drug interventions and life-extending (noncurative) interventions were associated with premature termination and symptom-control interventions (curative setting) were associated with trial completion.

NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018

The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for conducting health technology assessment (HTA) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS). In seeking to justify its recommendations to the NHS about which technologies to fund, NICE claims to adopt two complementary ethical frameworks, one procedural-accountability for reasonableness (AfR)-and one substantive-an 'ethics of opportunity costs' (EOC) that rests primarily on the notion of allocative efficiency. This study is the first to empirically examine normative changes to NICE's approach and to analyse whether these enhance or diminish the fairness of its decision-making, as judged against these frameworks. It finds that increasing formalisation of NICE's approach and a weakening of the burden of proof laid on technologies undergoing HTA have together undermined its commitment to EOC. This implies a loss of allocative efficiency and a shift in the balance of how the interests of different NHS users are served, in favour of those who benefit directly from NICE's recommendations. These changes also weaken NICE's commitment to AfR by diminishing the publicity of its decision-making and by encouraging the adoption of rationales that cannot easily be shown to meet the relevance condition. This signals a need for either substantial reform of NICE's approach, or more accurate communication of the ethical reasoning on which it is based. The study also highlights the need for further empirical work to explore the impact of these policy changes on NICE's practice of HTA and to better understand how and why they have come about.

Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders.

Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as "surrogates" to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS-derived CBS.

METHODS

Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman's correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS-derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS-derived CBS.

RESULTS

CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS-derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86), 0.38 (0.20-0.53), 0.20 (0.00-0.38), and 0.01 (-0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS-derived CBS.

Sex-Based Disparities Among Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

Landmark investigation two decades ago demonstrated sex-based disparities among participants in cancer cooperative group trials. Although federal efforts have aimed to improve representation of female patients in government-sponsored research, less is known about sex disparities in the broader landscape of modern oncologic randomized controlled trials. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified randomized controlled trials related to colorectal or lung cancer (the two most common non-sex-specific disease sites). Among the 147 included trials, the proportion of female patients enrolled on trial was on average 6.8% (95% confidence interval = -8.8% to -4.9%) less than the proportion of female patients in the population by disease site (P < .001). Whereas no statistically significant underrepresentation of women was noted within the 26 cooperative group trials, sex disparities were markedly heightened for the 121 noncooperative-group-sponsored trials. Furthermore, underrepresentation of women did not improve with time. Future efforts should therefore focus on addressing these pervasive sex-based enrollment disparities beyond cooperative group trials alone.

Rethinking clinical oncology drug research in an era of value-based cancer care: A role for chemotherapy pathways

The United States spends nearly 1/5th of its GDP on healthcare. Yet, to achieve value-based care, the Economist describes the US healthcare system as handicapped by multiple, disparate silos that prevent the organization and sharing of data. This paper explores the current state of clinical oncology drug research and its relationship to value-based cancer care. Clinical Chemotherapy Pathways are proposed as a unifying structure to bring together disparate sources of data to increase value.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Oncology: Commercial Versus Patient Benefit

At times of personalized and individualized medicine the concept of randomized- controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is being questioned. This review article explains principles of evidence-based medicine in oncology and shows an example of how evidence can be generated independently from RCTs. Personalized medicine involves molecular analysis of tumor properties and targeted therapy with small molecule inhibitors. Individualized medicine involves the whole patient (tumor and host) in the context of immunotherapy. The example is called Individualized Multimodal Immunotherapy (IMI). It is based on the individuality of immunological tumor-host interactions and on the concept of immunogenic tumor cell death (ICD) induced by an oncolytic virus. The evidence is generated by systematic data collection and analysis. The outcome is then shared with the scientific and medical community. The priority of big pharma studies is commercial benefit. Methods used to achieve this are described and have damaged the image of RCT studies in general. A critical discussion is recommended between all partners of the medical health system with regard to the conduct of RCTs by big pharma companies. Several clinics and institutions in Europe try to become more independent from pharma industry and to develop their own modern cancer therapeutics. Medical associations should include references to such studies from personalized and individualized medicine in their guidelines.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.

Sponsorship of oncology clinical trials in the United States according to age of eligibility

Background

The sponsorship mix of trials relevant to young people with cancer has not been reported. Understanding this sponsorship mix may have implications for policies and regulations related to pediatric cancer drug development.

Methods

We analyzed sponsorship of interventional trials first opened in the United States from 2007 to 2018 using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. A total of 51 781 trials across non‐oncology disciplines and 18 431 oncology trials were classified according to lower age of eligibility (≥18 years vs < 18 years). Studies were stratified according to sponsorship (industry vs non‐industry). Trial characteristics were compared by sponsorship category. Trends in sponsorship were tracked over time.

Results

Within oncology trials for patients ≥ 18 years, sponsorship was 33% industry and 67% non‐industry. Among oncology trials that included patients < 18 years, sponsorship was 16.6% industry and 83.4% non‐industry (P < .001). 15.5% of industry‐sponsored trials in non‐oncology disciplines included patients < 18 years, whereas only 5.2% of industry‐sponsored oncology trials were open to patients < 18 years (P < .001). Relative to trials with non‐industry sponsors, there was a statistically significant increase in industry sponsorship of oncology trials that included patients < 18 years over time (P < .001). Trial characteristics differed significantly according to sponsor type regardless of age of eligibility.

Conclusions

Interventional oncology trials that include patients < 18 years are less likely to be industry‐sponsored compared to oncology trials exclusively in patients ≥ 18 years. Compared to other medical disciplines, a smaller proportion of industry‐sponsored oncology trials included patients < 18 years. Trial sponsorship is associated with differential trial characteristics, such as trial duration and number of patients enrolled, regardless of age.

Optimized Image-Based Surrogate Endpoints in Targeted Therapies for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

We aimed to determine the optimized image-based surrogate endpoints (IBSEs) in targeted therapies for glioblastoma through a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

A systematic search of OVID-MEDLINE and EMBASE for phase III RCTs on glioblastoma was performed in December 2017. Data on overall survival (OS) and IBSEs, including progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS (6moPFS), 12-month PFS (12moPFS), median PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) were extracted. Weighted linear regression analysis for the hazard ratio for OS and the hazard ratios or odds ratios for IBSEs was performed. The associations between IBSEs and OS were evaluated. Subgroup analyses according to disease stage (newly diagnosed glioblastoma versus recurrent glioblastoma), types of test treatment, and types of response assessment criteria were performed.

Results

Twenty-three phase III RCTs published between 2000 and 2017, including 8387 patients, met the inclusion criteria. OS showed strong correlations with PFS (standardized β coefficient [R] = 0.719), 6moPFS (R = 0.647), and 12moPFS (R = 0.638). OS showed no correlations with median PFS and ORR. In subgroup analysis according to types of therapies, PFS showed the highest correlations with OS in targeted therapies for cell cycle pathways (R = 0.913) and growth factor receptors and their downstream pathways (R = 0.962). 12moPFS showed the highest correlation with OS in antiangiogenic therapy (R = 0.821). The response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria provided higher correlation coefficients between OS and IBSEs than the Macdonald criteria.

Conclusion

Overall, PFS is an optimized IBSE in targeted therapies for glioblastoma; however, 12moPFS is optimal in antiangiogenic therapy.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear whether patients with advanced cancer value surrogate end points, particularly progression-free survival (PFS). Despite this uncertainty, surrogate end points form the basis of regulatory approval for the majority of new cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and qualitatively assess studies evaluating whether patients with advanced cancer understand and value PFS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from database inception to November 12, 2018. Articles eligible for inclusion investigated patient understanding, preference, or perceived value of disease progression or PFS in the setting of advanced cancer. Three authors independently reviewed and extracted data from all studies eligible for inclusion.

FINDINGS

In total, 17 studies representing 3646 patients were included. Of these studies, 15 specifically aimed to assess patients' values toward, and their willingness to trade off toxic effects for gains or losses in the end point of PFS. All studies examined used widely disparate definitions when attempting to describe the meaning of PFS to patients. Ten studies specifically presented patients with the term progression-free survival as an attribute choice. In the words used to define the attribute of PFS, 6 studies used the term survival. Five studies clarified that PFS may not translate into better overall survival, and 5 studies explained that improvements in PFS may not reflect how well the patient may feel. No study clarified that a PFS event could represent either progression or death, and no study defined for the patient what constituted progression. The studies assessed herein underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities (mean percentage of white patients, 88%; range, 77%-96%). Values and preferences may vary across cultural backgrounds given that different relative preferences were assigned to cost and efficacy outcomes in North American vs Asian studies, although only a few studies were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The existing literature evaluating patients' understanding, preferences, and values toward the end point of PFS was severely limited by the heterogeneity of methods, attribute selection, and descriptions used to define PFS to patients. High-quality studies are needed that clearly define PFS for patients and that systematically document their understanding of the term. Only then can it be assessed whether PFS is an end point of value to patients with advanced cancer.

To randomize, or not to randomize, that is the question: using data from prior clinical trials to guide future designs

BACKGROUND

Understanding the value of randomization is critical in designing clinical trials. Here, we introduce a simple and interpretable quantitative method to compare randomized designs versus single-arm designs using indication-specific parameters derived from the literature. We demonstrate the approach through application to phase II trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (ndGBM).

METHODS

We abstracted data from prior ndGBM trials and derived relevant parameters to compare phase II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm designs within a quantitative framework. Parameters included in our model were (i) the variability of the primary endpoint distributions across studies, (ii) potential for incorrectly specifying the single-arm trial's benchmark, and (iii) the hypothesized effect size. Strengths and weaknesses of RCT and single-arm designs were quantified by various metrics, including power and false positive error rates.

RESULTS

We applied our method to show that RCTs should be preferred to single-arm trials for evaluating overall survival in ndGBM patients based on parameters estimated from prior trials. More generally, for a given effect size, the utility of randomization compared with single-arm designs is highly dependent on (i) interstudy variability of the outcome distributions and (ii) potential errors in selecting standard of care efficacy estimates for single-arm studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A quantitative framework using historical data is useful in understanding the utility of randomization in designing prospective trials. For typical phase II ndGBM trials using overall survival as the primary endpoint, randomization should be preferred over single-arm designs.

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents).

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Patient-Centered Cancer Drug Development: Clinical Trials, Regulatory Approval, and Value Assessment

Historically, patient experience, including symptomatic toxicities, physical function, and disease-related symptoms during treatment or their perspectives on clinical trials, has played a secondary role in cancer drug development. Regulatory criteria for drug approval require that drugs are safe and effective, and almost all drug approvals have been based only on efficacy endpoints rather than on quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. In contrast to Europe, information regarding the impact of drugs on patients' QoL is rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States. Until recently, patient input and preferences have not been incorporated into the design and conduct of clinical trials. In recent years, a more in-depth understanding of cancer biology, as well as regulatory changes focused on expediting cancer drug development and approval, has allowed earlier access to novel therapeutic agents. Understanding the implications of these expedited programs is important for oncologists and patients, given the rapid expansion of these programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the role of QoL in the regulatory drug-approval process, key issues regarding trial participation from the patient perspective, and the implications of key expedited approval programs that are increasingly being used by regulatory bodies for cancer care.

Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice

Background

Most clinical trials with time-to-event primary outcomes are designed assuming constant event rates and proportional hazards over time. Non-constant event rates and non-proportional hazards are seen increasingly frequently in trials. The objectives of this review were firstly to identify whether non-constant event rates and time-dependent treatment effects were allowed for in sample size calculations of trials, and secondly to assess the methods used for the analysis and reporting of time-to-event outcomes including how researchers accounted for non-proportional treatment effects.

Methods

We reviewed all original reports published between January and June 2017 in four high impact medical journals for trials for which the primary outcome involved time-to-event analysis. We recorded the methods used to analyse and present the main outcomes of the trial and assessed the reporting of assumptions underlying these methods. The sample size calculation was reviewed to see if the effect of either non-constant hazard rates or anticipated non-proportionality of the treatment effect was allowed for during the trial design.

Results

From 446 original reports we identified 66 trials with a time-to-event primary outcome encompassing trial start dates from July 1995 to November 2014. The majority of these trials (73%) had sample size calculations that used standard formulae with a minority of trials (11%) using simulation for anticipated changing event rates and/or non-proportional hazards. Well-established analytical methods, Kaplan-Meier curves (98%), the log rank test (88%) and the Cox proportional hazards model (97%), were used almost exclusively for the main outcome. Parametric regression models were considered in 11% of the reports. Of the trials reporting inference from the Cox model, only 11% reported any results of testing the assumption of proportional hazards.

Conclusions

Our review confirmed that when designing trials with time-to-event primary outcomes, methodologies assuming constant event rates and proportional hazards were predominantly used despite potential efficiencies in sample size needed or power achieved using alternative methods. The Cox proportional hazards model was used almost exclusively to present inferential results, yet testing and reporting of the pivotal assumption underpinning this estimation method was lacking.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0749-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Attitude and willingness of attendance for participating in or completing acupuncture trials: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the influence of patients' participation in and completing the acupuncture clinical trials through a cross-sectional survey. In addition, we explored potential factors involved in improving patient's compliance to treatment, thus enhancing the quality of acupuncture clinical studies.

METHODS

A survey was conducted at outpatient department of acupuncture and metabolic diseases in two hospitals in Beijing. The semi-structured questionnaire was designed based on literature review and Delphi methods. It contains 15 questions related to patients' experience and attitude. SPSS 22.0 was used for analyses. OR and 95% CI were used for dichotomous outcomes. Logistic regression analysis (LRA) and multi-LRA were used to explore the factors influencing patients' participation or completion and the relationship between demographic characteristics and potential factors.

RESULTS

A survey was conducted from April to September 2016. Five hundred patients were consecutively sampled to fill semi-structured questionnaires regardless of their types of disease. The participants (75.2% were female) were in the age range of 15-85 years and all of them completed the survey. The effect and safety of acupuncture therapy were considered to be the deciding factors by 92% and 96% of the respondents, respectively. Only 40 of the surveyed participants (8.0%) had previously participated in the clinical trials. The LRA showed they paid more attention to treatment regimen (frequency and session of treatment) when deciding whether or not to participate in the trials (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02-2.34). Multivariate LRA showed that elder people considered cost (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.70) to be an important factor, while the participants having medical insurance (OR 1.45, 95% CI -0.20-0.93) thought informed consent was important. Meanwhile, participants with higher education preferred regular follow-up (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.28).

CONCLUSION

After providing adequate information regarding the potential benefits and harms of the acupuncture treatment, completion of the treatment within the specific time regimen was found to be the most important factor affecting patient's compliance. Other factors, such as cost and regular follow-up, should also be given special consideration.