Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study

Background

Generalizability of registrative clinical trials to real-world clinical practice is influenced by comparability of patients in the two settings. We compared characteristics of cancer patients in registrative trials with real-world clinical practice in Italy.

Methods

Data on age, sex and performance status (PS) were derived from web-based monitoring registries developed by Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and corresponding registrative trials reported in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPAR) of European Medicines Agency (EMA). Weighted means were calculated in registries and trials and differences were described. Multivariate analysis was performed using Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis.

Findings

From January, 2013 to April, 2023, 419,461 unique pairs of patients and therapeutic indications were recorded in 129 AIFA registries. Within 140 related trials, 87,452 patients had been enrolled. Median age and rate of elderly (≥65 years old) patients were higher in monitoring registries than in clinical trials [mean difference of median age 5.3 years, p < 0.001; mean difference of elderly rate 17.17% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48)]. Overall, rate of female patients was not different between registries and trials [mean difference -0.55% (95% CI -1.06, -0.05)]. Mean rate of patients with deteriorated PS was low both in trials (3.1%) and in registries (4.3%) with a mean difference of 1.27% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48). Two clusters were identified with multivariate analysis: one including more registries (higher median age and elderly rate, lower female rate, higher rate of deteriorated patients), the other more trials (lower median age and elderly rate, higher female rate, lower rate of deteriorated patients).

Interpretation

This study supports that cancer patients enrolled in trials do only partially represent those who have been treated in Italy in clinical practice. Inclusiveness of registrative trials should be increased to ensure generalizability of results to real-world population.

Funding

Partially supported by Italian Ministry of Health.

Analysis of the adequacy of control arms in oncology randomised clinical trials published between 2017 and 2021: a meta-research study

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are usually considered the highest level of evidence for clinical practice. Patients assigned to control arm in RCTs should always receive the best available treatments to protect participants while also allowing for proper interpretation and applicability of study results. Here we analysed RCTs published in oncology between 2017 and 2021 to describe the frequency of suboptimal control arms.

METHODS

We identified phase III studies testing active treatments in patients with solid tumours among 11 major oncology journals. Each control arm was analysed, and the standard of care was determined according to international guidelines and scientific evidence at accrual beginning and until accrual completion. We identified studies with suboptimal control arm from the beginning (type 1) and studies with an initially optimal control arm which became outdated during the accrual period (type 2).

RESULTS

This analysis included 387 studies. Forty-three (11.1%) control arms were judged as suboptimal: 24 (6.2%) type 1 and 19 (4.9%) type 2. These rates were higher in industry-sponsored compared to academic trials: 9.3% versus 1.9% for type 1 (p = 0.003); 7.9% versus 0.6% for type 2 (p = 0.001). Rates of suboptimal control arms were higher in studies with positive results: 8.1% versus 4.0% for type 1 (p = 0.09); 7.6% versus 1.7% for type 2 (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Many trials have suboptimal control arms, even in journals with high-impact factors, leading to suboptimal treatment of control patients and biased evaluation of trial results.

Retrospective Analysis of the Correlation of MSI-h/dMMR Status and Response to Therapy for Endometrial Cancer: RAME Study, a Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND

There is poor evidence regarding sensitivity to chemotherapy in endometrial cancer (EC) based on microsatellite instability (MSI)/mismatch repair (MMR) status.

METHODOLOGY

The RAME study is a retrospective analysis aiming to assess response to chemotherapy in MSI-high (h)/deficient (d) MMR and MSI-low (l)/proficient (p) MMR EC patients. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with localized disease and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced/recurrent disease.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients treated between 2010 and 2022 in four high-volume Multicenter Italian Trial in Ovarian cancer and gynecological malignancies (MITO) centers were selected. In total, 239 patients had endometrioid EC (76.6%), 151 had FIGO stage I at diagnosis (48.9%) and 71 were MSI-h/dMMR (22.8%). Median age was 65 (range 31-91) years. Among patients with localized disease, median RFS was 100.0 months (95% CI 59.4-140.7) for MSI-l/pMMR and 120.9 months (60.0-181.8) for MSI-h/dMMR (p = 0.39). Seventy-seven patients received first-line chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent disease. Patients with MSI-h/dMMR ECs had a significantly worse OS (p = 0.039). In patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, no statistically significant differences in PFS (p = 0.21) or OS (p = 0.057) were detected, although PFS and OS were numerically longer in the MSI-l/pMMR population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with metastatic MSI-h/dMMR EC receiving first-line chemotherapy had a significantly worse OS.

Subgroup analyses in randomized phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours: a systematic review of trials published between 2017 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials are very common in oncology; nevertheless, the methodological approach has not been systematically evaluated. The present analysis was conducted with the aim of describing the prevalence and methodological characteristics of the subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using PubMed was carried out to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials conducted in adult patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, published between 2017 and 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, 253 publications were identified. Subgroup analyses were reported in 217 (86%) publications. A statistically significant association of presence of subgroup analysis with study sponsor was observed: subgroup analyses were reported in 157 (94%) for-profit trials compared with 60 (70%) non-profit trials (P < 0.001). Description of the methodology of subgroup analysis was completely lacking in 82 trials (38%), only cited without methodological details in 100 trials (46%) and fully described in 35 trials (16%). Forest plot of subgroup analyses for the primary endpoint was available in 195 publications (77%). Among publications with reported forest plots, the median number of subgroups for primary endpoint was 19 (range 6-78). Out of the 217 publications with subgroup analyses, authors discuss the heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subgroups in 173 publications (80%), although a formal test for interaction for subgroup analysis of primary endpoint was reported for at least one variable only in 60 publications (28%). Correction for multiplicity was explicitly carried out only in nine trials (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The very high prevalence of subgroup analyses in published papers, together with their methodological weaknesses, makes advisable an adequate education about their correct presentation and correct reading. More attention about proper planning and conduction of subgroup analysis should be paid not only by readers, but also by authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Prognostic effect of body mass index in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with chemoimmunotherapy combinations

Introduction

It has been recognized that increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with improved outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with various malignancies including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is unclear whether baseline BMI may influence outcomes from first-line chemoimmunotherapy combinations.

Methods

In this international multicenter study, we evaluated the association between baseline BMI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients with stage IV NSCLC consecutively treated with first-line chemoimmunotherapy combinations. BMI was categorized according to WHO criteria.

Results

Among the 853 included patients, 5.3% were underweight; 46.4% were of normal weight; 33.8% were overweight; and 14.5% were obese. Overweight and obese patients were more likely aged ≥70 years (p=0.00085), never smokers (p<0.0001), with better baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—Performance Status (p=0.0127), and had lower prevalence of central nervous system (p=0.0002) and liver metastases (p=0.0395). Univariable analyses showed a significant difference in the median OS across underweight (15.5 months), normal weight (14.6 months), overweight (20.9 months), and obese (16.8 months) patients (log-rank: p=0.045, log rank test for trend: p=0.131), while no difference was found with respect to the median PFS (log-rank for trend: p=0.510). Neither OS nor PFS was significantly associated with baseline BMI on multivariable analysis.

Conclusions

In contrast to what was observed in the context of chemotherapy-free ICI-based regimens, baseline BMI does not affect clinical outcomes from chemoimmunotherapy combinations in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Evaluation of COVID-19 impact on DELAYing diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of lung cancer patients in Italy (COVID-DELAY study): fewer cases and higher stages from a real-world scenario

Introduction

COVID-19 has disrupted the global health care system since March 2020. Lung cancer (LC) patients (pts) represent a vulnerable population highly affected by the pandemic. This multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 outbreak had an impact on access to cancer diagnosis and treatment of LC pts compared with pre-pandemic time.

Methods

Consecutive newly diagnosed LC pts referred to 25 Italian Oncology Departments between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset and diagnostic and therapeutic services were compared with the same period in 2019. Differences between the 2 years were analyzed using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables.

Results

A slight reduction (−6.9%) in newly diagnosed LC cases was observed in 2020 compared with 2019 (1523 versus 1637, P = 0.09). Newly diagnosed LC pts in 2020 were more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease (P < 0.01) and to be current smokers (someone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes, including hand-rolled cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, in their lifetime and has smoked in the last 28 days) (P < 0.01). The drop in terms of new diagnoses was greater in the lockdown period (percentage drop −12% versus −3.2%) compared with the other months included. More LC pts were referred to a low/medium volume hospital in 2020 compared with 2019 (P = 0.01). No differences emerged in terms of interval between symptoms onset and radiological diagnosis (P = 0.94), symptoms onset and cytohistological diagnosis (P = 0.92), symptoms onset and treatment start (P = 0.40), and treatment start and first radiological revaluation (P = 0.36).

Conclusions

Our study pointed out a reduction of new diagnoses with a shift towards higher stage at diagnosis for LC pts in 2020. Despite this, the measures adopted by Italian Oncology Departments ensured the maintenance of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of LC pts.

•

The COVID-19 outbreak had an impact on access to lung cancer (LC) diagnosis and treatment.

•

A slight reduction (−6.9%) in newly diagnosed LC cases was observed in 2020 compared with 2019.

•

Newly diagnosed LC pts in 2020 were more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease.

•

The Italian Oncology Departments ensured the maintenance of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of LC pts.

•

A reverse migration from high-volume to low-volume cancer centers was noted during the pandemic.

A review of molecularly targeted therapy in biliary tract carcinoma: what is the next step?

Patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas (BTCs) have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of fewer than 12 months following systemic chemotherapy. In recent years, the identification of distinct molecular alterations with corresponding targeted therapies is modifying this therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this review is to present an overview of targeted therapy for BTCs, describing published available data and potential future challenges in ongoing trials. From clinicaltrials.gov online database all ongoing trials for BTCs (any stage) was examinated in July 2021, and data regarding study design, disease characteristics and type of treatments were registered. Oncogenic-driven therapy (targeted therapy) was investigated in 67 trials. According to research, 15 ongoing trials (22.4%) are investigating fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor (FGFR)-inhibitors in BTCs. Three (18.7%) are open-label randomized multicenter phase 3 trials, 8 (50%) are single-arm phase two trials, and 4 (25%) are phase one studies. Twelve (17.9%) clinical trials dealt with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2 targeting therapy either in combination with cisplatin (Cis) and gemcitabine (Gem) as first-line treatment for BTCs or in monotherapy in patients with IDH1 mutant advanced malignancies, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Nine (13.4%) clinical trials tested human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 2 targeting therapy. Four (44.4%) studies are phase I trials, two (22.2%) are phase I/II trials, and three (33.3%) phase II trials. Rare molecular alterations in BTCs, such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene1 receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1), and v-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1 (BRAF), are also under investigation in a few trials. Forty-four clinical trials (17.2%) are investigating not oncogenic-driven multitarget therapy like multireceptor tyrosin kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenetic agents. In conclusion, this review shows that BTCs management is experiencing important innovations, especially in biomarker-based patient selection and in the new emerging therapeutic approach. Many ongoing trials could answer questions regarding the role of molecular inhibitors leading to new therapeutic frontiers for molecular subcategories of BTCs.

Adoption of multiple primary endpoints in phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions.

METHODS

Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints).

RESULTS

Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity.

The Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm)-Score Variation Is an Early-on-Treatment Biomarker of Outcome in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients Treated with First-Line Pembrolizumab

Background: The Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm)-Score takes into account neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), serum albumin concentration and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and its prognostic value has been investigated in patients treated with immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs). To further assess the prognostic and predictive value of baseline GRIm-Score (GRImT0) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients, we separately investigated two cohorts of patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy. We also investigated whether GRIm-Score at 45 days since treatment initiation (GRImT1) and GRIm-Score difference between the two timepoints may better predict clinical outcomes (GRImΔ = GRImT0 − GRImT1). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 222 aNSCLC patients: 135 treated with pembrolizumab and 87 treated with chemotherapy as the first-line regimen. NLR, serum albumin and LDH concentrations were assessed at T0 and at T1. According to the GRIm-Score, patients were assigned 1 point if they had NLR > 6, LDH > upper limit normal or albumin < 3.5 g/dL. Patients with a GRIm-Score < 2 were considered as having a low Score. Results: In both cohorts, no difference in terms of overall survival (OS) between patients with low and high GRImT0 was found. Otherwise, median OS and progression free survival (PFS) of the low GRImT1 group were significantly longer than those of the high GRImT1 group in pembrolizumab-treated patients, but not in the CHT cohort (pembrolizumab cohort: low vs. high; median OS not reached vs. 9.2 months, p = 0.004; median PFS 10.8 vs. 2.3 months, p = 0.002). Patients receiving pembrolizumab with stable/positive GRImΔ had better OS (median OS not reached vs. 12.0 months, p < 0.001), PFS (median PFS 20.6 vs. 2.6 months, p < 0.001) and objective response rate (58.2% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.003) compared to patients with negative GRImΔ. Conclusion: Our data shown that GRImT1 and GRImΔ are more reliable peripheral blood biomarkers of outcome compared to GRImT0 in aNSCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab and might represent useful biomarkers to drive clinical decisions in this setting.