Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis

Bypassing phase 2 in cancer drug development erodes the risk/benefit balance in phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVES

Drug developers sometimes launch phase 3 (P3) trials without supporting evidence from phase 2 (P2) trials. We call this practice "P2 bypass." The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of P2 bypass and to compare the safety and efficacy results for P3 trials that bypassed with those that did not.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We created a sample of P3 solid tumor trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with primary completion dates between 2013 and 2019. We then attempted to match each with a supporting P2 trial using strict and broad criteria. P3 outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random effects model with subgroup contrast between trials that bypassed and those that did not.

RESULTS

129 P3 trial arms met eligibility and nearly half involved P2 bypass. P3 trials involving P2 bypass produced significantly and nonsignificantly worse pooled efficacy estimates using broad and strict matching criteria, respectively. We did not observe significant differences in safety outcomes between P3 trials that bypassed P2 and those that did not.

CONCLUSION

The risk/benefit balance of P3 trials that bypassed P2 is less favourable than for trials supported by P2.

Inefficiencies in phase II to phase III transition impeding successful drug development in glioblastoma

Background

Improving outcomes of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) represents a significant challenge in neuro-oncology. We undertook a systematic review of key parameters of phase II and III trials in GBM to identify and quantify the impact of trial design on this phenomenon.

Methods

Studies between 2005 and 2019 inclusive were identified though MEDLINE search and manual bibliography searches. Phase II studies (P2T) were restricted to those referenced by the corresponding phase III trials (P3T). Clinical and statistical characteristics were extracted. For each P3T, corresponding P2T data was “optimally matched,” where same drug was used in similar schedule and similar population; “suboptimally matched” if dis-similar schedule and/or treatment setting; or “lacking.” Phase II/III transition data were compared by Pearson Correlation, Fisher’s exact or chi-square testing.

Results

Of 20 P3Ts identified, 6 (30%) lacked phase II data. Of the remaining 14 P3T, 9 had 1 prior P2T, 4 had 2 P2T, and 1 had 3 P2T, for a total of 20 P3T-P2T pairs (called dyads). The 13 “optimally matched” dyads showed strong concordance for mPFS (r² = 0.95, P < .01) and mOS (r² = 0.84, P < .01), while 7 “suboptimally matched” dyads did not (P > .05). Overall, 7 P3Ts underwent an ideal transition from P2T to P3T. “Newly diagnosed” P2Ts with mPFS < 14 months and/or mOS< 22 months had subsequent negative P3Ts. “Recurrent” P2Ts with mPFS < 6 months and mOS< 12 months also had negative P3Ts.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the critical role of optimally designed phase II trials in informing drug development for GBM.

The role of 18F-FAZA PET/CT in detecting lymph node metastases in renal cell carcinoma patients: a prospective pilot trial

BACKGROUND

The accurate detection of nodal invasion is an unmet need in the clinical staging of renal cancer. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside (18F-FAZA), a hypoxia specific tracer, is a non-invasive imaging method that detects tumour hypoxia. The aim of this work was to evaluate the role of 18F-FAZA PET/CT in the identification of lymph node metastases in renal cancer.

METHODS

A proof-of-concept phase 2 study including 20 kidney cancer patients ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03955393) was conducted. Inclusion criteria were one or more of the following three criteria: (1) clinical tumour size > 10 cm, (2) evidence of clinical lymphadenopathies at preoperative CT scan and (3) clinical T4 cancer. Before surgery, 18F-FAZA PET/CT was performed, 2 h after the intravenous injection of the radiotracer. An experienced nuclear medicine physician, aware of patient's history and of all available diagnostic imaging, performed a qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis on 18F-FAZA images. Histopathological analysis was obtained in all patients on surgical specimen.

RESULTS

Fourteen/19 (74%) patients had a non-organ confined renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at final pathology (either pT3 or pT4). Median number of nodes removed was 12 (IQR 7-15). The rate of lymph node invasion was 16%. No patient with pN1 disease showed positive 18F-FAZA PET, thus suggesting the non-hypoxic behaviour of the lesions. In addition, neither primary tumour nor distant metastases presented a pathological 18F-FAZA uptake. No adverse events were recorded during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

18F-FAZA PET/CT scan did not detect RCC lymph neither nodal nor distant metastases and did not show any uptake in the primary renal tumour.

Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature

OBJECTIVES

As much as 50%-90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 300 oncology publications published from 2014 to 2018. We extracted key reproducibility and transparency characteristics in a duplicative fashion by blinded investigators using a pilot tested Google Form.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this investigation is the frequency of key reproducible or transparent research practices followed in published biomedical and clinical oncology literature.

RESULTS

Of the 300 publications randomly sampled, 296 were analysed for reproducibility characteristics. Of these 296 publications, 194 contained empirical data that could be analysed for reproducible and transparent research practices. Raw data were available for nine studies (4.6%). Five publications (2.6%) provided a protocol. Despite our sample including 15 clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, only 7 included a preregistration statement. Less than 25% (65/194) of publications provided an author conflict of interest statement.

CONCLUSION

We found that key reproducibility and transparency characteristics were absent from a random sample of published oncology publications. We recommend required preregistration for all eligible trials and systematic reviews, published protocols for all manuscripts, and deposition of raw data and metadata in public repositories.