Mark T W Teo1, Lucy McParland2, Ane L Appelt1, David Sebag-Montefiore3. 1. Radiotherapy Research Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 2. Radiotherapy Research Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Radiotherapy Research Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: d.sebag-montefiore@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer have reported promising efficacy signals, but these have not translated into improved cancer outcomes in phase 3 trials. Improvements in phase 2 trial design are needed to reduce these false-positive signals. This systematic review evaluated the design of phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification from 2004 to 2016. Trial clinical design and outcomes were assessed, with statistical design and compliance rated using a previously published system. Multivariable meta-regression analysis of pathologic complete response (pCR) was conducted. RESULTS: We identified 92 eligible trials. Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II and III equivalent disease were eligible in 87 trials (94.6%). In 43 trials (46.7%), local staging on magnetic resonance imaging was mandated. Only 12 trials (13.0%) were randomized, with 8 having a standard-treatment control arm. Just 51 trials (55.4%) described their statistical design, with 21 trials (22.8%) failing to report their sample size derivation. Most trials (n=84, 91.3%) defined a primary endpoint, but 15 different primary endpoints were used. All trials reported pCR rates. Only 38 trials (41.3%) adequately reported trial statistical design and compliance. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled pCR rate of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, 15.7%-19.4%) across treatment arms of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification and substantial heterogeneity among the reported effect sizes (I2 = 55.3%, P<.001). Multivariable meta-regression analysis suggested increased pCR rates with higher radiation therapy doses (adjusted P=.025). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in the design of future phase 2 rectal cancer trials is urgently required. A significant increase in randomized trials is essential to overcome selection bias and determine novel schedules suitable for phase 3 testing. This systematic review provides key recommendations to guide future treatment intensification trial design in rectal cancer.
PURPOSE: Multiple phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer have reported promising efficacy signals, but these have not translated into improved cancer outcomes in phase 3 trials. Improvements in phase 2 trial design are needed to reduce these false-positive signals. This systematic review evaluated the design of phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification from 2004 to 2016. Trial clinical design and outcomes were assessed, with statistical design and compliance rated using a previously published system. Multivariable meta-regression analysis of pathologic complete response (pCR) was conducted. RESULTS: We identified 92 eligible trials. Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II and III equivalent disease were eligible in 87 trials (94.6%). In 43 trials (46.7%), local staging on magnetic resonance imaging was mandated. Only 12 trials (13.0%) were randomized, with 8 having a standard-treatment control arm. Just 51 trials (55.4%) described their statistical design, with 21 trials (22.8%) failing to report their sample size derivation. Most trials (n=84, 91.3%) defined a primary endpoint, but 15 different primary endpoints were used. All trials reported pCR rates. Only 38 trials (41.3%) adequately reported trial statistical design and compliance. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled pCR rate of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, 15.7%-19.4%) across treatment arms of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification and substantial heterogeneity among the reported effect sizes (I2 = 55.3%, P<.001). Multivariable meta-regression analysis suggested increased pCR rates with higher radiation therapy doses (adjusted P=.025). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in the design of future phase 2 rectal cancer trials is urgently required. A significant increase in randomized trials is essential to overcome selection bias and determine novel schedules suitable for phase 3 testing. This systematic review provides key recommendations to guide future treatment intensification trial design in rectal cancer.
Authors: S Hoendervangers; J P M Burbach; M M Lacle; M Koopman; W M U van Grevenstein; M P W Intven; H M Verkooijen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Baard-Christian Schem; Frank Pfeffer; Martin Anton Ott; Johan N Wiig; Nils Sletteskog; Torbjørn Frøystein; Mette Pernille Myklebust; Sabine Leh; Olav Dahl; Olav Mella Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Séan M O'Cathail; Steven Davis; Jane Holmes; Richard Brown; Kerry Fisher; Leonard Seymour; Richard Adams; James Good; David Sebag-Montefiore; Tim Maughan; Maria A Hawkins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 3.481