Literature DB >> 32681475

The proportion of North American cancer trials that evaluate novel targets.

Eli Gumnit1, Aden C Feustel1, Sandy Wong1, Rafia Bosan1, Nora Hutchinson1, Jonathan Kimmelman2.   

Abstract

Major advances in cancer care often emerge from the development of novel targets. We randomly sampled 10% of cancer trials on clinicaltrials.gov with start dates 2013-2016 to determine the proportion of trials and research subjects directed at evaluating novel targets. We found that 87 of 378 trials (23.0%) enrolling 9225 of 44,525 patients (20.7%) tested interventions that are directed towards novel targets. 146 of 378 trials (38.6%) enrolling 19,132 of 44,525 patients (43.0%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved but utilized a previously studied target for treating cancer. Combined, 233 of 378 trials (61.6%) enrolling 28,357 of 44,525 patients (63.9%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved. Furthermore, 36 of 378 trials (9.5%) enrolling 6592 of 44,525 patients (14.8%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs in their approved indication and combination while 109 of 378 trials (28.8%) enrolling 9576 of 44,525 patients (21.5%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs outside of their approved indication or combination. Logistic regression found that phase 1 trials were significantly more likely to test novel target interventions than phase 2 and 3 trials (p value = 0.00197 and 0.00130 respectively). Industry sponsored trials were also significantly more likely to involve novel target interventions than non-industry trials (p value <0.001). In conclusion, most cancer trials involve unapproved treatments, but a majority of these treatments are well-characterized or involve a previously studied target to treat cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Clinical trials; Drug development; Drug novelty; Target novelty; Trial novelty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32681475     DOI: 10.1007/s10637-020-00971-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest New Drugs        ISSN: 0167-6997            Impact factor:   3.850


  7 in total

1.  Why the drug development pipeline is not delivering better medicines.

Authors:  Huseyin Naci; Alexander W Carter; Elias Mossialos
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-10-23

2.  How many "me-too" drugs is too many?

Authors:  Joshua J Gagne; Niteesh K Choudhry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Drug repurposing in oncology--patient and health systems opportunities.

Authors:  Francesco Bertolini; Vikas P Sukhatme; Gauthier Bouche
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 4.  The discovery of first-in-class drugs: origins and evolution.

Authors:  Jörg Eder; Richard Sedrani; Christian Wiesmann
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  The novelty bubble.

Authors:  Jean-Christophe Leroux
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 9.776

6.  Failure of Investigational Drugs in Late-Stage Clinical Development and Publication of Trial Results.

Authors:  Thomas J Hwang; Daniel Carpenter; Julie C Lauffenburger; Bo Wang; Jessica M Franklin; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 7.  Inefficiencies and Patient Burdens in the Development of the Targeted Cancer Drug Sorafenib: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  James Mattina; Benjamin Carlisle; Yasmina Hachem; Dean Fergusson; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 8.029

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Diminishing clinical impact for post-approval cancer clinical trials: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Charlotte Ouimet; Gauthier Bouche; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 3.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.