PCNI5 GEMZAR RETROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL TRIALS (GREAT2): A PATIENT-LEVEL COST COMPARISON OF THREE CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS IN THE TREATMENT OF NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER IN FRANCE

59 Background: The use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in cancer patients could lead to additional enrollment in clinical trials that study novel genetic biomarkers, potentially reducing treatment costs for payers and improving health outcomes for patients. Our objective was to estimate the number of additional clinical trials in which patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could potentially enroll due to the use of CGP vs. a comparator panel of 50 genes or less. Methods: Clinical trials in NSCLC that started between 2015 - 2020 were identified from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database. Trials with unknown status or study sites outside the United States only were excluded. We abstracted information on required genetic alterations based on the study eligibility criteria. We calculated the incremental number of trials available to patients due to results generated by CGP (FoundationOne CDx, 324 genes) vs. a commercially available comparator panel that was 50 genes or less (Oncomine Dx Target Test, 23 genes) by phase and calendar year. The additional trials were characterized by disease severity, type of therapy, and setting. Results: Enrollment eligibility was dependent on genetic variant status in 35% (250/709) of all identified NSCLC trials. There were 29 (248 vs. 219) additional clinical trials available to patients through the use of CGP, 12% of all gene-specific trials for NSCLC. We identified 45 uses of genetic markers in the 29 additional clinical trials. The most frequent genetic marker in the incremental trials was microsatellite instability, accounting for 44% of all identified markers (20/45). The incremental number of trials available to patients due to the use of CGP did not vary significantly over time but varied by phase – most of the additional clinical trials were in phase 1 or 2 (28/29, 97%). Most of the incremental trials were in metastatic disease (22/29, 76%) and were conducted in academic or advanced community settings (18/29, 62%). The most frequently studied type of intervention in these studies was targeted monotherapy (8/29, 28%), followed by immuno-monotherapy (7/29, 24%). Conclusions: Clinical trials in NSCLC initiated over the past 5 years have consistently included CGP-specific genes or markers in eligibility criteria. Patients with NSCLC have the potential to benefit from the use of CGP as compared to smaller gene panels through improved access to clinical trials.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Reply to the comments on: Erlotinib in combination with bevacizumab has potential benefit in non small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Lung Cancer ◽

10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.11.011 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 126 ◽

pp. 225-226 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Binghao Zhao ◽

Wenxiong Zhang

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Potential Benefit ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Small Cell ◽

Small Cell Lung

Download Full-text

Are clinical trial eligibility criteria an accurate reflection of a real-world population of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients?

Current Oncology ◽

10.3747/co.25.3978 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

K. Al-Baimani ◽

H. Jonker ◽

T. Zhang ◽

G.D. Goss ◽

S.A. Laurie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Advanced Nsclc ◽

Small Cell ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Ecog Ps

Background Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) represents a major health issue globally. Systemic treatment decisions are informed by clinical trials, which, over years, have improved the survival of patients with advanced nsclc. The applicability of clinical trial results to the broad lung cancer population is unclear because strict eligibility criteria in trials generally select for optimal patients.Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with advanced nsclc seen in outpatient consultation at our academic institution between September 2009 and September 2012, collecting data about patient demographics and cancer characteristics, treatment, and survival from hospital and pharmacy records. Two sets of arbitrary trial eligibility criteria were applied to the cohort. Scenario A stipulated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ecog ps) 0–1, no brain metastasis, creatinine less than 120 μmol/L, and no second malignancy. Less-strict scenario B stipulated ecog ps 0–2 and creatinine less than 120 μmol/L. We then used the two scenarios to analyze treatment and survival of patients by trial eligibility status.Results The 528 included patients had a median age of 67 years, with 55% being men and 58% having adenocarcinoma. Of those 528 patients, 291 received at least 1 line of palliative systemic therapy. Using the scenario A eligibility criteria, 73% were trial-ineligible. However, 46% of “ineligible” patients actually received therapy and experienced survival similar to that of the “eligible” treated patients (10.2 months vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.10). Using the scenario B criteria, only 35% were ineligible, but again, the survival of treated patients was similar in the ineligible and eligible groups (10.1 months vs. 10.9 months, p = 0.57).Conclusions Current trial eligibility criteria are often strict and limit the enrolment of patients in clinical trials. Our results suggest that, depending on the chosen drug, its toxicities and tolerability, eligibility criteria could be carefully reviewed and relaxed.

Download Full-text