Nitin Roper1, Kristian D Stensland2, Ryan Hendricks3, Matthew D Galsky4. 1. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, United States; Department of Surgery, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, United States; Department of Urology, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, United States. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: Matthew.galsky@mssm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advances in tumor biology and multiplex genomic analysis have ushered in the era of precision cancer medicine. Little is currently known, however, about the landscape of prospective "precision cancer medicine" clinical trials in the U.S. METHODS: We identified all adult interventional cancer trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between September 2005 and May 2013. Trials were classified as "precision cancer medicine" if a genomic alteration in a predefined set of 88 genes was required for enrollment. Baseline characteristics were ascertained for each trial. RESULTS: Of the initial 18,797 trials identified, 9094 (48%) were eligible for inclusion: 684 (8%) were classified as precision cancer medicine trials and 8410 (92%) were non-precision cancer medicine trials. Compared with non-precision cancer medicine trials, precision cancer medicine trials were significantly more likely to be phase II [RR 1.19 (1.10-1.29), p<0.001], multi-center [RR 1.18 (1.11-1.26), p<0.001], open-label [RR 1.04 (1.02-1.07), p=0.005] and involve breast [RR 4.03 (3.49-4.52), p<0.001], colorectal [RR 1.62 (1.22-2.14), p=0.002] and skin [RR 1.98 (1.55-2.54), p<0.001] cancers. Precision medicine trials required 38 unique genomic alterations for enrollment. The proportion of precision cancer medicine trials compared to the total number of trials increased from 3% in 2006 to 16% in 2013. CONCLUSION: The proportion of adult cancer clinical trials in the U.S. requiring a genomic alteration for enrollment has increased substantially over the past several years. However, such trials still represent a small minority of studies performed within the cancer clinical trials enterprise and include a small subset of putatively "actionable" alterations.
PURPOSE: Advances in tumor biology and multiplex genomic analysis have ushered in the era of precision cancer medicine. Little is currently known, however, about the landscape of prospective "precision cancer medicine" clinical trials in the U.S. METHODS: We identified all adult interventional cancer trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between September 2005 and May 2013. Trials were classified as "precision cancer medicine" if a genomic alteration in a predefined set of 88 genes was required for enrollment. Baseline characteristics were ascertained for each trial. RESULTS: Of the initial 18,797 trials identified, 9094 (48%) were eligible for inclusion: 684 (8%) were classified as precision cancer medicine trials and 8410 (92%) were non-precision cancer medicine trials. Compared with non-precision cancer medicine trials, precision cancer medicine trials were significantly more likely to be phase II [RR 1.19 (1.10-1.29), p<0.001], multi-center [RR 1.18 (1.11-1.26), p<0.001], open-label [RR 1.04 (1.02-1.07), p=0.005] and involve breast [RR 4.03 (3.49-4.52), p<0.001], colorectal [RR 1.62 (1.22-2.14), p=0.002] and skin [RR 1.98 (1.55-2.54), p<0.001] cancers. Precision medicine trials required 38 unique genomic alterations for enrollment. The proportion of precision cancer medicine trials compared to the total number of trials increased from 3% in 2006 to 16% in 2013. CONCLUSION: The proportion of adult cancer clinical trials in the U.S. requiring a genomic alteration for enrollment has increased substantially over the past several years. However, such trials still represent a small minority of studies performed within the cancer clinical trials enterprise and include a small subset of putatively "actionable" alterations.
Authors: James Y Dai; Michael LeBlanc; Phyllis J Goodman; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-12-11
Authors: Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez; Kim M Hirshfield; Veronica Rojas; Robert S DiPaola; Darlene Gibbon; Mira Hellmann; Sara Isani; Aliza Leiser; Gregory M Riedlinger; Allison Wagreich; Siraj M Ali; Julia A Elvin; Vincent A Miller; Shridar Ganesan Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jacob G Scott; Anders Berglund; Michael J Schell; Ivaylo Mihaylov; William J Fulp; Binglin Yue; Eric Welsh; Jimmy J Caudell; Kamran Ahmed; Tobin S Strom; Eric Mellon; Puja Venkat; Peter Johnstone; John Foekens; Jae Lee; Eduardo Moros; William S Dalton; Steven A Eschrich; Howard McLeod; Louis B Harrison; Javier F Torres-Roca Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sander Bins; Geert A Cirkel; Christa G Gadellaa-Van Hooijdonk; Fleur Weeber; Isaac J Numan; Annette H Bruggink; Paul J van Diest; Stefan M Willems; Wouter B Veldhuis; Michel M van den Heuvel; Rob J de Knegt; Marco J Koudijs; Erik van Werkhoven; Ron H J Mathijssen; Edwin Cuppen; Stefan Sleijfer; Jan H M Schellens; Emile E Voest; Marlies H G Langenberg; Maja J A de Jonge; Neeltje Steeghs; Martijn P Lolkema Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Christina L Decatur; Erin Ong; Nisha Garg; Hima Anbunathan; Anne M Bowcock; Matthew G Field; J William Harbour Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389