Literature DB >> 25231398

Raising the bar for antineoplastic agents: how to choose threshold values for superiority trials in advanced solid tumors.

Alberto F Sobrero1, Alessandro Pastorino2, Daniel J Sargent3, Paolo Bruzzi2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To establish the concept of minimum clinically meaningful outcome (mCMO) of treatment in advanced solid tumors, to establish its threshold and evaluate how many superiority trials of new antineoplastic agents pass this threshold. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: We chose overall survival as the primary indicator of patient benefit. Four conceptually different types of treatment effect can be identified in OS curves: HR, gains in median OS, proportional, and absolute increases at long-term OS. We postulated threshold levels for these four parameters defining the mCMO and set the bar at three different levels of required benefit: high, medium, and low. The postulated values were then studied by comparing our thresholds with the actual results of the pivotal superiority phase III trials on new drugs reporting on mature OS data.
RESULTS: Forty-three trials on 35,419 patients in 12 cancer types on 23 novel agents met these criteria. Only two trials reached the postulated "high" thresholds for HR and median OS. The number of "positive trials" increased to eight and 15 when the bar was lowered to the "medium" and "low" levels, respectively. The same analysis was done for proportional and absolute increases in long-term OS. No trial satisfied the criteria for long-term benefit, whereas only two and nine trials satisfied both parameters for the "medium and low" required benefit levels, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: All four OS-related parameters contribute to define the mCMO. If the bar for the mCMO is raised too much, positive trials are exceptional. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25231398     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1505

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  10 in total

Review 1.  Moving towards a customized approach for drug development: lessons from clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer.

Authors:  Sara Pilotto; Luisa Carbognin; Niki Karachaliou; Marina Garassino; Federica Cuppone; Sandra Petraglia; Rafael Rosell; Giampaolo Tortora; Emilio Bria
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-12

Review 2.  Setting Appropriate Goals for the Next Generation of Clinical Trials in Myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Giovanni Barosi
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.952

Review 3.  Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.

Authors:  Richard M Goldberg; Richard Adams; Marc Buyse; Cathy Eng; Axel Grothey; Thierry André; Alberto F Sobrero; Stuart M Lichtman; Al B Benson; Cornelis J A Punt; Tim Maughan; Tomasz Burzykowski; Dirkje Sommeijer; Everardo D Saad; Qian Shi; Elisabeth Coart; Benoist Chibaudel; Miriam Koopman; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Takayuki Yoshino; Julien Taieb; Niall C Tebbutt; John Zalcberg; Josep Tabernero; Eric Van Cutsem; Alastair Matheson; Aimery de Gramont
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 11.816

Review 4.  Is lenalidomide the standard-of-care after an autotransplant for plasma cell myeloma?

Authors:  Giovanni Barosi; Robert Peter Gale
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 5.  Methodological issues in the choice among different drugs approved for the same therapeutic indication: a position paper by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).

Authors:  Massimo Di Maio; Paolo Bruzzi; Francesco Perrone; Valter Torri; Filippo Montemurro; Marcello Tiseo; Enrico Vasile
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2016-12-12

6.  Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules.

Authors:  Urania Dafni; Dimitris Karlis; Xanthi Pedeli; Jan Bogaerts; George Pentheroudakis; Josep Tabernero; Christoph C Zielinski; Martine J Piccart; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Nicola Jane Latino; Jean-Yves Douillard; Nathan I Cherny
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2017-10-09

Review 7.  Timing and extent of response in colorectal cancer: critical review of current data and implication for future trials.

Authors:  Giuseppe Aprile; Caterina Fontanella; Marta Bonotto; Karim Rihawi; Stefania Eufemia Lutrino; Laura Ferrari; Mariaelena Casagrande; Elena Ongaro; Massimiliano Berretta; Antonio Avallone; Gerardo Rosati; Francesco Giuliani; Gianpiero Fasola
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-10-06

8.  The hard road to ranking the clinical benefit of antineoplastic agents: ESMO Award 2016 presentation.

Authors:  Alberto Sobrero
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2017-03-09

9.  A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumour resection plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in incurable stage IV colorectal cancer: JCOG1007 (iPACS study).

Authors:  Konosuke Moritani; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Dai Shida; Kohei Shitara; Junki Mizusawa; Hiroshi Katayama; Tetsuya Hamaguchi; Yasuhiro Shimada
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Primary Tumor Resection Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for Colorectal Cancer Patients With Asymptomatic, Synchronous Unresectable Metastases (JCOG1007; iPACS): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Yukihide Kanemitsu; Kohei Shitara; Junki Mizusawa; Tetsuya Hamaguchi; Dai Shida; Koji Komori; Satoshi Ikeda; Hitoshi Ojima; Hideyuki Ike; Akio Shiomi; Jun Watanabe; Yasumasa Takii; Takashi Yamaguchi; Kenji Katsumata; Masaaki Ito; Junji Okuda; Ryoji Hyakudomi; Yasuhiro Shimada; Hiroshi Katayama; Haruhiko Fukuda
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.