Cargando…

Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal treatment upon progression may affect overall survival (OS) results in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess the proportion of trials reporting post-progression treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included two concurrent analyses. The fir...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olivier, Timothée, Haslam, Alyson, Prasad, Vinay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37198564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z
_version_ 1785043190681698304
author Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
author_facet Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
author_sort Olivier, Timothée
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Suboptimal treatment upon progression may affect overall survival (OS) results in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess the proportion of trials reporting post-progression treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included two concurrent analyses. The first one examined all published RCTs of anti-cancer drugs in six high impact medical/oncology journals between January 2018 and December 2020. The second studied all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved anti-cancer drugs during the same period. Included trials needed to study an anti-cancer drug in the advanced or metastatic setting. Data abstracted included the tumor type, characteristics of trials, and reporting and assessment of post-progression treatment. RESULTS: There were 275 published trials and 77 US FDA registration trials meeting inclusion criteria. Assessable post-progression data were reported in 100/275 publications (36.4%) and 37/77 approvals (48.1%). Treatment was considered substandard in 55 publications (n = 55/100, 55.0%) and 28 approvals (n = 28/37, 75.7%). Among trials with assessable post-progression data and positive OS results, a subgroup analysis identified substandard post-progression treatment in 29 publications (n = 29/42, 69.0%) and 20 approvals (n = 20/26, 76.9%). Overall, 16.4% of publications (45/275) and 11.7% of registration trials (9/77) had available post-progression data assessed as appropriate. CONCLUSION: We found that most anti-cancer RCTs do not report assessable post-progression treatment. When reported, post-progression treatment was substandard in most trials. In trials reporting positive OS results and with assessable post-progression data, the proportion of trials with subpar post-progression treatment was even higher. Discrepancies between post-progression therapy in trials and the standard of care can limit RCT results’ applicability. Regulatory rules should enforce higher requirements regarding post-progression treatment access and reporting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10189952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101899522023-05-18 Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020 Olivier, Timothée Haslam, Alyson Prasad, Vinay BMC Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Suboptimal treatment upon progression may affect overall survival (OS) results in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess the proportion of trials reporting post-progression treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included two concurrent analyses. The first one examined all published RCTs of anti-cancer drugs in six high impact medical/oncology journals between January 2018 and December 2020. The second studied all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved anti-cancer drugs during the same period. Included trials needed to study an anti-cancer drug in the advanced or metastatic setting. Data abstracted included the tumor type, characteristics of trials, and reporting and assessment of post-progression treatment. RESULTS: There were 275 published trials and 77 US FDA registration trials meeting inclusion criteria. Assessable post-progression data were reported in 100/275 publications (36.4%) and 37/77 approvals (48.1%). Treatment was considered substandard in 55 publications (n = 55/100, 55.0%) and 28 approvals (n = 28/37, 75.7%). Among trials with assessable post-progression data and positive OS results, a subgroup analysis identified substandard post-progression treatment in 29 publications (n = 29/42, 69.0%) and 20 approvals (n = 20/26, 76.9%). Overall, 16.4% of publications (45/275) and 11.7% of registration trials (9/77) had available post-progression data assessed as appropriate. CONCLUSION: We found that most anti-cancer RCTs do not report assessable post-progression treatment. When reported, post-progression treatment was substandard in most trials. In trials reporting positive OS results and with assessable post-progression data, the proportion of trials with subpar post-progression treatment was even higher. Discrepancies between post-progression therapy in trials and the standard of care can limit RCT results’ applicability. Regulatory rules should enforce higher requirements regarding post-progression treatment access and reporting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z. BioMed Central 2023-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10189952/ /pubmed/37198564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title_full Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title_fullStr Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title_full_unstemmed Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title_short Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
title_sort post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to fda approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37198564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z
work_keys_str_mv AT oliviertimothee postprogressiontreatmentincancerrandomizedtrialsacrosssectionalstudyoftrialsleadingtofdaapprovalandpublishedtrialsbetween2018and2020
AT haslamalyson postprogressiontreatmentincancerrandomizedtrialsacrosssectionalstudyoftrialsleadingtofdaapprovalandpublishedtrialsbetween2018and2020
AT prasadvinay postprogressiontreatmentincancerrandomizedtrialsacrosssectionalstudyoftrialsleadingtofdaapprovalandpublishedtrialsbetween2018and2020