[Phases 0, 1 and 2 oncology clinical trials: current questions]

Quality of reporting in oncology phase II trials: A 5-year assessment through systematic review

BACKGROUND

Phase II clinical trials are a cornerstone of the development in experimental treatments They work as a "filter" for phase III trials confirmation. Surprisingly the attrition ratio in Phase III trials in oncology is significantly higher than in any other medical specialty. This suggests phase II trials in oncology fail to achieve their goal. Objective The present study aims at estimating the quality of reporting in published oncology phase II clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

A literature review was conducted among all phase II and phase II/III clinical trials published during a 5-year period (2010-2015).

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All articles electronically published by three randomly-selected oncology journals with Impact-Factors>4 were included: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology and British Journal of Cancer.

INTERVENTION

Quality of reporting was assessed using the Key Methodological Score.

RESULTS

557 articles were included. 315 trials were single-arm studies (56.6%), 193 (34.6%) were randomized and 49 (8.8%) were non-randomized multiple-arm studies. The Methodological Score was equal to 0 (lowest level), 1, 2, 3 (highest level) respectively for 22 (3.9%), 119 (21.4%), 270 (48.5%) and 146 (26.2%) articles. The primary end point is almost systematically reported (90.5%), while sample size calculation is missing in 66% of the articles. 3 variables were independently associated with reporting of a high standard: presence of statistical design (p-value <0.001), multicenter trial (p-value = 0.012), per-protocol analysis (p-value <0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Screening was mainly performed by a sole author. The Key Methodological Score was based on only 3 items, making grey zones difficult to translate.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This literature review highlights the existence of gaps concerning the quality of reporting. It therefore raised the question of the suitability of the methodology as well as the quality of these trials, reporting being incomplete in the corresponding articles.

[Phase 0 exploratory clinical trials: literature review 2006-2009]

Currently in oncology a novel agent entering development has only 5% chance of making it to commercial use. One of the ways to mitigate this problem would be to conduct exploratory or 'phase 0' clinical trials, conducted before phase 1 dose-escalation safety and tolerance studies. These phase 0 studies are a first administration of the novel agent to humans, at limited doses, on a small number of patients and over a short period. The objectives are to validate preclinical development and to acquire pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in order to better justify the scientific rational. In this article, we focus on phase 0 trials and their usefulness for the development of new drugs in oncology. We performed a literature review of questions related to phase 0 trials in articles published during 2006 to 2009. Thirty articles on phase 0 clinical trials have been published. The affected fields are oncology and pharmacology. Phase 0 clinical trials are discussed in the literature in terms of theoretical issues and from academic, pharmaceutical industry and patient point of views. If phase 0 clinical trials are a future prospect for drug development against cancer, the clinical applications of these trials need to be specified.