Joseph C Del Paggio1, John S Berry2, Wilma M Hopman3,4, Elizabeth A Eisenhauer5, Vinay Prasad6, Bishal Gyawali2,4,5, Christopher M Booth2,4,5. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Canada. 2. Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 3. Kingston General Health Research Institute, Kingston, Canada. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 5. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes. OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS: The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.
IMPORTANCE: The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes. OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS: The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.
Authors: Daniel V Araujo; Bruno Uchoa; Juan José Soto-Castillo; Larissa L Furlan; Marc Oliva Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.864
Authors: Chan Shen; Daniel Tannenbaum; Robert Horn; Jane Rogers; Cathy Eng; Shouhao Zhou; Benny Johnson; Scott Kopetz; Van Morris; Michael Overman; Christine Parseghian; George J Chang; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Raghav Kanwal; Lee M Ellis; Arvind Dasari Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: C S Pramesh; Rajendra A Badwe; Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy; Christopher M Booth; Girish Chinnaswamy; Anna J Dare; Victor Piana de Andrade; David J Hunter; Satish Gopal; Mary Gospodarowicz; Sanjeeva Gunasekera; Andre Ilbawi; Sharon Kapambwe; Peter Kingham; Tezer Kutluk; Nirmal Lamichhane; Miriam Mutebi; Jackson Orem; Groesbeck Parham; Priya Ranganathan; Manju Sengar; Richard Sullivan; Soumya Swaminathan; Ian F Tannock; Vivek Tomar; Verna Vanderpuye; Cherian Varghese; Elisabete Weiderpass Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Satya Das; Liping Du; Cody L Lee; Nina D Arhin; Jennifer A Chan; Elise C Kohn; Daniel M Halperin; Jordan Berlin; Heather LaFerriere; Simron Singh; Pamela L Kunz; Arvind Dasari Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: Adam Fundytus; Manju Sengar; Dorothy Lombe; Wilma Hopman; Matthew Jalink; Bishal Gyawali; Dario Trapani; Felipe Roitberg; Elisabeth G E De Vries; Lorenzo Moja; André Ilbawi; Richard Sullivan; Christopher M Booth Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 41.316