Cargando…

Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Péron, Julien, Reverdy, Thibaut, Smenteck, Colette, Cortet, Marion, You, Benoît, Freyer, Gilles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8199547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34199352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112757
_version_ 1783707402331226112
author Péron, Julien
Reverdy, Thibaut
Smenteck, Colette
Cortet, Marion
You, Benoît
Freyer, Gilles
author_facet Péron, Julien
Reverdy, Thibaut
Smenteck, Colette
Cortet, Marion
You, Benoît
Freyer, Gilles
author_sort Péron, Julien
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials published between 2001 and 2020. We found that the quality of the evidence supporting new breast cancer drugs was improving over time, but that patient-relevant endpoints such as survival and quality of life remained unfrequently used as primary endpoints. ABSTRACT: Background: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials. Methods: All phase III randomized trials published between 2001 and 2020 and assessing systemic BC therapies were included. Trials’ main characteristics, endpoints, and statistical methods were collected using a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 347 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. While most older trials (79%) included all subtypes of breast cancer, most recent trials populations were limited to one large intrinsic BC subgroup (69%). The use of gatekeeping testing strategies increased dramatically from 9% to 71%. The use of overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in the trials increased over time, but its use as a primary endpoint remained infrequent. The inclusion of OS testing in a hierarchical sequence in case of positive testing of a tumor-centered or composite endpoint appeared to have become the new standard. Conclusion: Our findings indicate some improvements in the quality of the evidence-base supporting new breast cancer drugs. The rigorous assessment of patient-relevant endpoints has increased over time, but this improvement is mainly related to the analysis of OS as a secondary endpoint analyzed in a hierarchical sequence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8199547
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81995472021-06-14 Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials Péron, Julien Reverdy, Thibaut Smenteck, Colette Cortet, Marion You, Benoît Freyer, Gilles Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials published between 2001 and 2020. We found that the quality of the evidence supporting new breast cancer drugs was improving over time, but that patient-relevant endpoints such as survival and quality of life remained unfrequently used as primary endpoints. ABSTRACT: Background: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials. Methods: All phase III randomized trials published between 2001 and 2020 and assessing systemic BC therapies were included. Trials’ main characteristics, endpoints, and statistical methods were collected using a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 347 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. While most older trials (79%) included all subtypes of breast cancer, most recent trials populations were limited to one large intrinsic BC subgroup (69%). The use of gatekeeping testing strategies increased dramatically from 9% to 71%. The use of overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in the trials increased over time, but its use as a primary endpoint remained infrequent. The inclusion of OS testing in a hierarchical sequence in case of positive testing of a tumor-centered or composite endpoint appeared to have become the new standard. Conclusion: Our findings indicate some improvements in the quality of the evidence-base supporting new breast cancer drugs. The rigorous assessment of patient-relevant endpoints has increased over time, but this improvement is mainly related to the analysis of OS as a secondary endpoint analyzed in a hierarchical sequence. MDPI 2021-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8199547/ /pubmed/34199352 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112757 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Péron, Julien
Reverdy, Thibaut
Smenteck, Colette
Cortet, Marion
You, Benoît
Freyer, Gilles
Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title_full Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title_fullStr Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title_full_unstemmed Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title_short Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials
title_sort methods and designs of modern breast cancer confirmatory trials
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8199547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34199352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112757
work_keys_str_mv AT peronjulien methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials
AT reverdythibaut methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials
AT smenteckcolette methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials
AT cortetmarion methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials
AT youbenoit methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials
AT freyergilles methodsanddesignsofmodernbreastcancerconfirmatorytrials