Sean X Zhang1, Dean Fergusson2, Jonathan Kimmelman1. 1. Studies of Translation, Ethics, and Medicine, Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and the School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phase I oncology trials are often regarded as a therapeutic option for patients. However, such claims have relied on surrogate measures of benefit, such as objective response. METHODS: Using a systematic search of publications, we assessed the therapeutic value of phase I cancer trial participation by determining the probability that patients will receive active doses of treatments that eventually receive FDA approval or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendation for their indication. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology reports, NCCN guidelines, and Drugs@FDA were searched between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 1000 phase I oncology trials initiated between 2005 and 2010 and enrolling 32 582 patients were randomly sampled from 3229 eligible trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 386 (1.2%) patients received a treatment that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for their malignancy at a dose delivered in the trial; including NCCN guideline recommendations, the number and proportion are 1168 (3.6%). Meta-regression showed a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients receiving a drug that was ultimately FDA approved in biomarker trials (rate ratio = 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 13.23; P = .006) and single-indication trials (rate ratio = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.21 to 9.15; P = .02); proportions were statistically significantly lower for combination vs monotherapy trials (rate ratio = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.68; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: One in 83 patients in phase I cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received. Given published estimates of serious adverse event rates of 10%-19%, this represents low therapeutic value for phase I trial participation.
BACKGROUND: Phase I oncology trials are often regarded as a therapeutic option for patients. However, such claims have relied on surrogate measures of benefit, such as objective response. METHODS: Using a systematic search of publications, we assessed the therapeutic value of phase I cancer trial participation by determining the probability that patients will receive active doses of treatments that eventually receive FDA approval or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendation for their indication. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology reports, NCCN guidelines, and Drugs@FDA were searched between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 1000 phase I oncology trials initiated between 2005 and 2010 and enrolling 32 582 patients were randomly sampled from 3229 eligible trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 386 (1.2%) patients received a treatment that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for their malignancy at a dose delivered in the trial; including NCCN guideline recommendations, the number and proportion are 1168 (3.6%). Meta-regression showed a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients receiving a drug that was ultimately FDA approved in biomarker trials (rate ratio = 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 13.23; P = .006) and single-indication trials (rate ratio = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.21 to 9.15; P = .02); proportions were statistically significantly lower for combination vs monotherapy trials (rate ratio = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.68; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: One in 83 patients in phase I cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received. Given published estimates of serious adverse event rates of 10%-19%, this represents low therapeutic value for phase I trial participation.
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Laura A Levit; Peter C Adamson; Suanna Bruinooge; Howard A Burris; Michael A Carducci; Adam P Dicker; Mithat Gönen; Stephen M Keefe; Michael A Postow; Michael A Thompson; David M Waterhouse; Susan L Weiner; Lynn M Schuchter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E M J van Brummelen; A D R Huitema; E van Werkhoven; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 2.745
Authors: Elizabeth Horstmann; Mary S McCabe; Louise Grochow; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Larry Rubinstein; Troy Budd; Dale Shoemaker; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maria Bonomi; Sara Pilotto; Michele Milella; Francesco Massari; Sara Cingarlini; Matteo Brunelli; Marco Chilosi; Giampaolo Tortora; Emilio Bria Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-12-29
Authors: Nora Hutchinson; Benjamin Carlisle; Adelaide Doussau; Rafia Bosan; Eli Gumnit; Amanda MacPherson; Dean A Fergusson; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03