scholarly journals Developing real-world comparators for clinical trials in chemotherapy-refractory patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Dung T. Le ◽  
Patrick A. Ott ◽  
Beata Korytowsky ◽  
Hannah Le ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There are few third-line or later (3L+) treatment options for advanced/metastatic (adv/met) gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancers (GC/GEJC). 3L+ Nivolumab demonstrated encouraging results in Asian patients in the ATTRACTION-2 study compared with placebo (12-month survival, 26% vs 11%), and in Western patients in the single-arm CheckMate 032 study (12-month survival, 44%). This analysis aimed to establish comparator cohorts of US patients receiving routine care in real-world (RW) clinical practice. Methods A 2-step matching process generated RW cohorts from Flatiron Health’s oncology database (January 1, 2011–April 30, 2017), for comparison with each trial: (1) clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied; (2) patients were frequency-matched with trial arms for baseline variables significantly associated with survival. Median overall survival (OS) was calculated by Kaplan–Meier analysis from last treatment until death. Results Of 742 adv/met GC/GEJC patients with at least 2 prior lines of therapy, matching generated 90 US RW ATTRACTION-2-matched patients (median OS: 3.5 months) versus 163 ATTRACTION-2 placebo patients (median OS: 4.1 months), and 100 US RW CheckMate 032-matched patients (median OS: 2.9 months) versus 42 CheckMate 032 nivolumab-treated patients (median OS: 8.5 months). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between clinical trial arms and RW-matched cohorts. Conclusions We successfully developed RW cohorts for comparison with data from clinical trials, with comparable baseline characteristics. Survival in US patients receiving RW care was similar to that seen in Asian patients receiving placebo in ATTRACTION-2; survival with nivolumab in CheckMate 032 appeared favorable compared with US RW clinical practice.

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-142
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Dung T. Le ◽  
Patrick A. Ott ◽  
Beata Korytowsky ◽  
Hannah Le ◽  
...  

ping real-world comparators for


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 304-304
Author(s):  
Veena Shankaran ◽  
Hong Xiao ◽  
David Bertwistle ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Pranav Abraham ◽  
...  

304 Background: Gastric cancer clinical trials are inconsistent in their inclusion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Thus it is uncertain if outcomes are similar among subgroups of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. The aim of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of US patients with EAC versus Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer (GEJC) and Gastric Cancer (GC) treated in real world clinical settings. Methods: Adult patients with unresectable, advanced or metastatic GC, GEJC, or EAC diagnosed between January 2011 and November 2018 were identified from the Flatiron Health database. Patients with a positive HER2 test, or who received trastuzumab, were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from first-line (1L) treatment initiation to death or loss of follow-up. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank test and Cox models. Results: A total of 3052 patients (969 EAC and 2083 GEJC/GC) met eligibility criteria. Out of all EAC patients, 90% were males and 76% were white. Within the GEJC/GC patients, 67% were males and 57% were white. Median age was 66 years for both cohorts while proportion with ECOG PS of 0 or 1 was 78% for EAC and 84% for GEJC/GC among patients with ECOG scores. The proportion of patients receiving 1L treatment was comparable (78% for EAC, 76% for GEJC/GC) across groups with FOLFOX being the most frequent treatment (25% for EAC and 29% for GEJC/GC). There was no significant difference in OS between the two groups, with median OS of 9.1 and 9.6 months for EAC and GEJC/GC, respectively (HR 0.957, 95% CI: 0.863 - 1.062, p = 0.41). Conclusions: In this US real-world analysis, OS did not differ significantly between patients with EAC and patients with GEJC/GC who received 1L treatment, suggesting that these two populations may have comparable survival benefit from systemic therapy.


2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Tan ◽  
Drexell H. Boggs ◽  
Eudocia Q. Lee ◽  
Michelle M. Kim ◽  
Minesh P. Mehta ◽  
...  

Brain metastases cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cancer. In the era of precision oncology and immunotherapy, there are rapidly evolving systemic treatment options. These novel therapies may have variable intracranial efficacy, and patients with brain metastases remain a population of special interest. Typically, only patients with stable, asymptomatic and/or treated brain metastases are enrolled in clinical trials, or may be excluded altogether, particularly in the setting of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Consequently, this leads to significant concerns on the external validity of clinical trial evidence to real-world clinical practice. Here we describe the current trends in cancer clinical trial eligibility for patients with brain metastases in both early and late phase trials, with a focus on targeted and immunotherapies. We evaluate recent newly FDA approved therapies and the clinical trial evidence base leading to approval. This includes analysis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, requirements for baseline screening for brain metastases, surveillance cerebral imaging and incorporation of trial endpoints for patients with brain metastases. Finally, the use of alternative sources of data such as real-world evidence with registries and collaborative studies will be discussed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Xu ◽  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Hansi Zhang ◽  
Jiang Bian ◽  
Fei Wang

Restrictive eligibility criteria for clinical trials may limit the generalizability of treatment effectiveness and safety to real-world patients. In this paper, we propose a machine learning approach to derive patient subgroups from real-world data (RWD), such that the patients within the same subgroup share similar clinical characteristics and safety outcomes. The effectiveness of our approach was validated on two existing clinical trials with the electronic health records (EHRs) from a large clinical research network. One is the donepezil trial for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and the other is the Bevacizumab trial on colon cancer (CRC). The results show that our proposed algorithm can identify patient subgroups with coherent clinical manifestations and similar risk levels of encountering severe adverse events (SAEs). We further exemplify that potential rules for describing the patient subgroups with less SAEs can be derived to inform the design of clinical trial eligibility criteria.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (S7) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana O. Perkins

AbstractMost clinical data for antipsychotics come from studies designed to test the efficacy and safety of the drugs under ideal conditions, in limited subgroups of patients. In contrast, practical clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to test the effectiveness of different treatment options under conditions that more accurately reflect actual clinical practice. Consequently, PCTs are able to provide information that can be utilized by healthcare providers and other decision makers. Characteristics of PCTs include a clinically relevant question, a representative sample of patients and practice settings, sufficient power to identify modest relevant effects, randomization to protect against bias, uncertainty regarding the outcome of treatment, assessment and treatment protocols that enact best clinical practices, simple and relevant outcomes, and limited subject and investigator burden. The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) research program is an example of a PCT. The CATIE study illustrates how PCTs, when properly designed, might be helpful in informing clinical decision making. Because the CATIE study was designed to reflect the effectiveness of antipsychotics under naturalistic clinical conditions, its results should have particular applicability to the arena of clinical practice. This article provides a discussion of the differences between efficacy and effectiveness studies. In assessing the practical utility of results from the CATIE study, much can be learned on how to shape future studies of effectiveness so as to better generate data that are applicable to the “real world.”


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 468-473
Author(s):  
Christine E. Jo ◽  
Jorge R. Georgakopoulos ◽  
Matthew Ladda ◽  
Arvin Ighani ◽  
Asfandyar Mufti ◽  
...  

Background Systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis (AD) has been challenging with limited safe and efficacious long-term treatment options. In 2017, dupilumab was approved in the United States, Europe, and Canada as the first targeted therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Despite promising efficacy and safety results in clinical trials, our understanding of dupilumab in clinical practice remains limited with few studies outside clinical trials in literature. Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in clinical practice and discuss any differences in results between clinical trials and real-world results. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of consecutive patients receiving dupilumab treatment at two tertiary hospitals in Toronto, Canada, between December 2017 and May 2019. The primary efficacy endpoint was measured by Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks and all adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients were recorded. Results Of the 93 patients included in the study, 51 (55%) reached IGA 0/1 and 38 (41%) experienced ≥1 AE. There were no severe AEs or discontinuation prior to 16 weeks due to an AE. Conclusions These findings suggest a higher IGA-based efficacy profile with no newly identified safety concerns in patients treated with dupilumab at two tertiary hospitals in Toronto, Canada, compared to those in randomized controlled trials.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2970-2970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tolulope Fatola ◽  
Sarah C. Rutherford ◽  
John N. Allan ◽  
Jia Ruan ◽  
Richard R. Furman ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction. Recent research in lymphoma has resulted in better outcomes for clinical trial populations. Population studies have suggested that some real-world patients (pts) have not benefited. We hypothesized that one reason for this discrepancy is the difference between trial participants and real-world pts. We aimed to: 1) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world and clinical trial pts receiving first-line therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); and 2) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world DLBCL, FL, and MCL pts with clinical trial eligibility criteria. Methods. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified all phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that opened between 2002-2017 and included pts with DLBCL, FL, MCL. Published trials that included front-line immunotherapy and chemotherapy were selected, and eligibility criteria recorded. We reviewed publications and recorded pt numbers and characteristics. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) Lymphoma Database, an IRB-approved, prospective cohort which started in 2010, we identified all pts diagnosed with DLBCL, FL, and MCL and recorded baseline characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to describe clinical trial eligibility and pt characteristics. Fisher's exact test was used to compare pt characteristics. Results. We identified 642 phase 2 and 3 trials on Clinicaltrials.gov, 37 of which met predefined criteria. The most frequent exclusion criteria were HIV infection (n=33), pregnancy (n=25), HBV infection (n=21), history of non-lymphoma cancer (n=19), ECOG>2 (n=16), HCV infection (n=16), serum creatinine >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=15), active infection (n=12), history of MI (n=11), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=7), congestive heart failure (n=4), hemoglobin (Hb) <10g/dL (n=4). A total of 5614 pts were enrolled in 37 trials. Pt characteristics are listed in Table 1. Of 3690 enrolled in the 23 trials that reported the number of patients screened for eligibility, 502 (14%) were excluded based on eligibility criteria. We identified 652 pts in the WCM Database with newly diagnosed DLBCL, FL, and MCL (Table 1). Key differences between clinical trial and Database populations for DLBCL included proportion of pts with stage 3-4 disease (79% vs 60%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (40% vs 25%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (23% vs 15%, p=0.016), and intermediate or high IPI (85% vs 66%, p<0.001); 36% of Database pts were age >70. Among FL pts, key differences between trial and Database populations included proportion with stage 3-4 disease (98% vs 56%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (36% vs 8%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (21% vs. 5%, p<0.001), and intermediate or high FLIPI (83% vs 58%, p<0.001). All FL trials had a median age between 50-60, whereas 30% Database pts varied in age from 27-93 years and 30% were age >70. Clinical trial vs. Database MCL pts differed in proportion with presence of B symptoms (29% vs 18%, p=0.022) or bulky disease (18% vs 5%, p=0.025), and intermediate or high MIPI (63.5% vs 79%, p=0.002); 42% of Database pts were age >70. Of all 652 pts from the Database, 190 (29%) had characteristics that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. The most common reasons for exclusion included history of cancer (11%), cardiac arrhythmias (7%), MI (6%), active infections (6%) and Hb <10g/dL (5%). Only 19 might have been excluded due to serum creatinine >2mg/dL (1.4%), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL (0.9%) and ECOG >2 (0.6%). Conclusions. These data suggest that real-world lymphoma pts are considerably more heterogeneous than clinical trial populations. While the average pt in WCM Database had a lower stage and/or lower prognostic risk score than a typical trial population, over 30% of database pts were > 70, a group that was uncommon in clinical trials. Likewise, almost 30% of Database pts had medical conditions that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. Future research should focus on better defining the characteristics and outcomes of pts that either are underrepresented on clinical trials, both intentionally due to eligibility criteria and unintentionally for less clear reasons. It is likely that some eligibility criteria have little impact on treatment and outcomes and may be eliminated from prospective trials, while other trials may focus on pts that remain poorly understood. Disclosures Allan: Acerta: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Gilead: Consultancy. Leonard:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron P. Mitchell ◽  
Michael R. Harrison ◽  
Mark S. Walker ◽  
Daniel J. George ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
...  

Patients with mRCC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in real-world clinical practice are sicker than those enrolled onto pivotal clinical trials, and more than one third are trial ineligible.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6540-6540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Savage Bennette ◽  
Nathan Coleman Nussbaum ◽  
Melissa D. Curtis ◽  
Neal J. Meropol

6540 Background: RCTs are the gold standard for understanding the efficacy of new treatments, however, patients (pts) in RCTs often differ from those treated in the real-world. Further, selecting a standard of care (SOC) arm is challenging as treatment options may evolve during the course of a RCT. Our objective was to assess the generalizability and relevance of RCTs supporting recent FDA approvals of anticancer therapies. Methods: RCTs were identified that supported FDA approvals of anticancer therapies (1/1/2016 - 4/30/2018). Relevant pts were selected from the Flatiron Health longitudinal, EHR-derived database, where available. Two metrics were calculated: 1) a trial’s pt generalizability score (% of real-world pts receiving treatment consistent with the control arm therapy for the relevant indication who actually met the trial's eligibility criteria) and 2) a trial’s SOC relevance score (% of real-world pts with the relevant indication and meeting the trial's eligibility criteria who actually received treatment consistent with the control arm therapy). All analyses excluded real-world pts treated after the relevant trial’s enrollment ended. Results: 14 RCTs across 5 cancer types (metastatic breast, advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, multiple myeloma, and advanced urothelial) were included. There was wide variation in the SOC relevance and pt generalizability scores. The median pt generalizability score was 63% (range 35% - 88%), indicating that most real-world pts would have met the RCT eligibility criteria. The median SOC relevance score was 37% (range 15% - 74%), indicating that most RCT control arms did not reflect the way trial-eligible real-world pts in the US were actually treated. Conclusions: There is great variability across recent RCTs in terms of pt generalizability and relevance of SOC arms. Real-world data can be used to inform selection of control arms, predict impact of inclusion/exclusion criteria, and also assess the generalizability of the results of completed trials. Incorporating real-world data in planning and interpretation of prospective clinical trials could improve accrual and enhance relevance of RCT outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document