scholarly journals Generalized Competing Event Models Can Reduce Cost and Duration of Cancer Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Kaveh Zakeri ◽  
Neil Panjwani ◽  
Ruben Carmona ◽  
Hanjie Shen ◽  
Lucas K. Vitzthum ◽  
...  

Purpose Generalized competing event (GCE) models improve stratification of patients according to their risk of cancer events relative to competing causes of mortality. The potential impact of such methods on clinical trial power and cost, however, is uncertain. We sought to test the hypothesis that GCE models can reduce estimated clinical trial cost in elderly patients with cancer. Methods Patients with nonmetastatic head and neck (n = 9,677), breast (n = 22,929), or prostate cancer (n = 51,713) were sampled from the SEER-Medicare database. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared risk scores for all-cause mortality (ACM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) with GCE-based risk scores for each disease. We applied a cost function to estimate the cost and duration of clinical trials with a primary end point of overall survival in each population and in high-risk subpopulations. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine model uncertainty. Results For the purpose of enriching subpopulations, GCE models reduced estimated clinical trial cost compared with Cox models of ACM and CSM in all disease sites. The relative cost reductions with GCE models compared with ACM and CSM models, respectively, were −68.4% and −14.4% in prostate cancer, −38.8% and −18.3% in breast cancer, and −17.1% and −4.1% in head and neck cancer. Cost savings in breast and prostate cancers were on the order of millions of dollars. The GCE model also reduced relative clinical trial duration compared with CSM and ACM models for all disease sites. The optimal risk score cutoff for clinical trial enrollment occurred near the top tertile for all disease sites. Conclusion GCE models have significant potential to improve clinical trial efficiency and reduce cost, with a potentially large impact in prostate and breast cancers.

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e053096
Author(s):  
Maia Salholz-Hillel ◽  
Peter Grabitz ◽  
Molly Pugh-Jones ◽  
Daniel Strech ◽  
Nicholas J DeVito

ObjectiveTo examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThe COVID-19 clinical trial landscape.Participants285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020.Main outcome measuresOverall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (ie, by journal article, preprint or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route.ResultsFollowing automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n=25) followed by journal articles (n=18), and results on a registry (n=2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%.ConclusionCOVID-19 trials completed during the first 6 months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared with non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data are accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for the next phase of the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials study expanding both our trial population and follow-up time.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmette Hutchison ◽  
Sreenath Nampally ◽  
Imran Khan Neelufer ◽  
Youyi Zhang ◽  
Jim Weatherall ◽  
...  

The amount of time and resources invested in bringing novel therapeutics to market has increased year over year with fewer successful treatments reaching patients. In the lifecycle of drug development, the clinical phase is a major contributor to this decreasing efficiency in the development of clinical trials. One major barrier to the successful execution of a randomized control trial (RCT) is the attrition of patients who no longer participate in a trial either following enrollment or randomization. To address this problem, we have assembled a unique dataset by integrating multiple public databases including ClinicalTrials.gov and Aggregate Analysis of ClincalTrials.gov (AACT) to assemble a trial sponsor-independent dataset. This data spans 20 years of clinical trials and over 1 million patients (3,175 cohorts consisting of 1,020,085 patients and 79 curated features) in the respiratory domain and enabled a data-driven approach to identify top features influencing patient attrition in a trial. Top Features included Duration of Trial, Duration of Treatment, Indication, and Number of Adverse Events. We evaluated multiple machine learning models and found the best performance on the Test Set with Random Forest (Test subset: n=637 cohorts; RMSE 6.64). We envisage that our work will enable clinical trial sponsors to optimize trial run time by better anticipating and correcting for potential patient attrition using patient-centric strategies to improve patient engagement, thus enabling new therapies to be delivered to patients more quickly.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 59-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt D. Galsky ◽  
Asma Latif ◽  
Kristian D. Stensland ◽  
Erin L. Moshier ◽  
Russell McBride ◽  
...  

59 Background: An extremely small proportion of patients with cancer in the United States (US) enroll in clinical trials. While several barriers to trial accrual have been described, the geographic distribution and accessibility of clinical trial sites has not been comprehensively explored. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried to identify all active US clinical trials exploring first-line therapies for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) on 9/16/2012. We evaluated the geographic distribution of trial sites and determined the relationship between the number of sites and the number of patients with advanced PCa per county and evaluated heterogeneity using Lorenz curves. We also estimated the minimum driving distance required to access a clinical trial site from each ZIP code in the continguous US; a distance >30 miles was defined as high travel burden consistent with prior studies. Results: We identified 958 sites associated with 42 PCa clinical trials (Table). The geographic distribution of clinical trial sites was very inhomogeneous with several states having only 1-2 trial sites. Among 3185 US counties, 2,669 (83.8%) had no clinical trials available for first-line treatment of metastatic PCa. Counties with larger populations of patients with advanced PCa had significantly higher numbers of clinical trial sites. For every 100 additional patients with advanced PCa per county, the number of available trial sites increased by 21.0% (95% CI: 16.5-25.7%). However, Lorenz curves indicated a high degree of inequality in trial accessibility (Gini index 0.71). Approximately 31% of the US population resided >30 miles from a PCa trial site. Conclusions: Clinical trials sites are poorly accessible, geographically, to a large subset of US PCa patients, a finding that likely contributes to dismal accrual. Innovative solutions are required to address geographic barriers to access. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5074-5074
Author(s):  
Harshraj Leuva ◽  
Mengxi Zhou ◽  
Julia Wilkerson ◽  
Keith Sigel ◽  
Ta-Chueh Hsu ◽  
...  

5074 Background: Novel assessments of efficacy are needed to improve determination of treatment outcomes in clinical trials and in real-world settings. Methods: Cancer treatments usually lead to concurrent regression and growth of the drug-sensitive and drug-resistant fractions of a tumor, respectively. We have exploited novel methods of analysis that assess these two simultaneous processes and have estimated rates of tumor growth ( g) and regression ( d) in over 30,000 patients (pts) with diverse tumors. Results: In prostate cancer (PC) we have analyzed both clinical trial and real-world data from Veterans. Using clinical trial data from 6819 pts enrolled in 15 treatment arms we have established separately and by combining all the data that g correlates highly (p<0.0001) with overall survival (OS) – slower g associated with better OS. In PC, abiraterone (ABI) and docetaxel (DOC) are superior to placebo, prednisone and mitoxantrone. ABI (median g =0.0017) is superior to DOC ( g=0.0021) in first line (p=0.0013); and ABI in 2nd line ( g=0.0034) is inferior to ABI in 1st line ( g=0.0017; p<0.0001). Finally, using combined clinical trial data as a benchmark we could assess the efficacy of novel therapies in as few as 30-40 patients. Amongst 7457 Veterans, the median g on a taxane ( g=0.0022) was similar to that from clinical trials ( g=0.0012). Although only 258 Veterans received cabazitaxel (CAB), g values for CAB ( g=0.0018) and DOC ( g=0.0023) were indistinguishable (p=0.3) consistent with their identical mechanism of action. Finally, outcomes with DOC in African American (AA) ( g=0.00212) and Caucasian ( g=0.00205) Veterans were indistinguishable (p=0.9) and comparable across all VAMCs. Conclusions: The rate of tumor growth, g, is an excellent biomarker for OS both in clinical trials and in real-world settings. g allows comparisons between trials and for large trial data sets to be used as benchmarks of efficacy. Real-world outcomes in the VAMCs are similar to those in clinical trials. In the egalitarian VAMCs DOC efficacy in PC is comparable in AA and Caucasian Veterans -- indicating inferior outcomes reported in AAs are likely due to differential health care access, not differences in biology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14054-e14054
Author(s):  
Yun Mai ◽  
Kyeryoung Lee ◽  
Zongzhi Liu ◽  
Zhiqiang Li ◽  
Scott Jones ◽  
...  

e14054 Background: Matching clinical attributes (i.e. indications, lab tests, treatment regimens) of clinical trial eligibility criteria with real world patient data is extremely challenging. Attribute phenotyping is one of the key components of Trial2Patient, a customized system developed by Sema4 to find patients for clinical trials. Transforming treatment regimens to a standard ontology and encoding drugs with standard nomenclatures will facilitate the semantic retrieval of treatments mentioned in clinical trial criteria. This will also enable the interoperation between different data sources that is often required for fast-learning and scalable healthcare information system. Methods: Free text containing treatment regimen/medication terms were extracted and preprocessed from three sources: 1) clinical trials listed in a commercial database citeline.com, 2) clinical trials listed in clinicaltrials.gov, and 3) National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. The regimen terms such as neoadjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer, checkpoint inhibitor, EGFR inhibitor, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), among many others, were profiled by AI methods (i.e. pattern reorganization and rule-based) and knowledge engineering via Sema4’s in-house knowledge base (CAV), Pharmaprojects in citline.com and NCCN Guidelines. The drugs related to each regimen were identified and mapped to RxCUI via RxNorm ontology. Results: We identified 76 regimen terms for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and prostate cancer (e.g. PD-L1 ≥1% nonsquamous NSCLC, bone antiresorptive therapy for M1 castration resistant prostate cancer), and 14,476 drug-category pair (e.g. pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor, pembrolizumab is used as the third line and beyond systemic therapy for M1 CRPC). All drugs identified were mapped to RxCUI for real world patient matching. Conclusions: This approach systematically extracted and normalized regimens and medications mentioned in clinical trials in NSCLC, SCLC and prostate cancer to standard codes. These standardized data can be used in mapping treatment histories of a patient to the eligibility criteria for clinical studies or for identifying studies relevant to a patient. The outcome of profiling cancer treatment regimens through standard ontology RxNorm may be particularly valuable in cancer studies based on real-world evidence.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rampalli Viswa Chandra ◽  
Devaraju Rama Raju

ABSTRACTBackground & objectivesThe study had two aims. 1) Analysis of research projects done in our institution from 2014-2019 to identify products with a potential for commercialization and 2) To understand the effect of product-development variables on research projects to improve the quality of future commercialization-oriented trials.Methods338 clinical trials were grouped into 188 projects under the headings irrigants, diagnostic devices, surgical devices, biomaterials and gels. Trials per project, capital, material costs, labour and the cycle times per trial were calculated. To understand the effect these variables, five hypotheses were generated to test whether greater number of trials, successes, higher capital, more investigators per trial and a longer trial duration will result in a product worthy of commercialization.Results22 projects had products with a potential for commercialization. Except labour and cycle time (p>0.05), all variables showed significant differences across all projects. Three products were identified as having potential for actual commercialization. It was observed that greater number of trials (χ2=4.6793; p=0.030528) and successes (χ2=20.8134; p<0.00001) in a project along with a higher capital (χ2=12.2662; p=0.000461) will generate a product worthy of commercialization.Interpretation & conclusionsThe results seem to suggest that in trials for commercialization, emphasis must be placed on implementing multiple, well-designed clinical trials on a device or product to successfully identify whether it is commercialization-worthy or not. Due attention must be given to the financial aspects of the projects as deficiencies may result in negative impact on the flow and outcomes of a clinical trial.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4534-4534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Philipp le Coutre ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Jiří Mayer ◽  
Philip A. Rowlings ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The safety profile of each BCR-ABL1– targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is unique and should be considered when choosing therapy. Although rare, potentially severe adverse events have been reported in CML pts treated with TKIs, particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension with DAS (Montani, Circulation 2012), peripheral arterial occlusive disease with nilotinib (Kim, Leukemia 2013), and arterial and venous occlusive events with ponatinib (Cortes, N Engl J Med 2013). The incidence of CV ischemic events in DAS-treated pts from clinical trials was assessed. Standardized incidence rates (SIRs) were calculated to determine if the number of observed events was different than expected compared with reference populations. Methods: Incidence of CV ischemic events (Table 1) were assessed in a pooled population of DAS-treated pts with any phase CML or Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia from 11 first- and second-line clinical trials (N=2712; median age, 54 years [y]), newly diagnosed CML pts treated with DAS (n=258; median age, 46 y) or imatinib (IM; n=258; median age, 49 y) from the phase 3 DASISION trial only (CA180-056, NCT 00481247), and prostate cancer pts from the phase 3 READY trial treated with DAS or placebo in combination with docetaxel and prednisone (CA180-227, NCT 00744497; N=1518; about 66% of pts were >65 y of age). Reference populations for SIR analyses were a general population (total N=116,000,000; males N=56,000,000), CML pts (N=16,000), and prostate cancer pts (N=530,000) derived from Truven's MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental database, 2008–2013, narrowed to mimic clinical trial eligibility. SIRs were calculated by dividing the observed number of events in DAS-treated pts by the expected number of events, based on the DAS exposure and reference population event rates. Results: Within the pooled population, 96 pts (4%) had CV ischemic events. In DASISION, 10 DAS- and 4 IM-treated pts had any grade CV ischemic events. In READY, 18 pts in the DAS arm and 9 pts in the placebo arm had any grade CV ischemic events. The majority of pts with a CV event had a history and/or risk factors for atherosclerosis (77/96 [80%] in the pooled population; 8/10 with DAS and 3/4 with IM in DASISION). Time-to-event analysis revealed that, in the pooled population, CV ischemic events occurred in 69/96 pts (72%) within 1 y, 11 pts (11%) in 1–2 y, and 16 pts (17%) in 3–7 y. Over 70% tolerated continued DAS therapy without a recurrent CV event. In DASISION, CV events occurred in 7/10 pts within 1 y of DAS initiation, 2 pts in 1–3 y, and 1 pt after 5 y. Based on SIRs, the observed number of CV events in DAS-treated pts was not higher than expected, given the rates of reference populations (Table 1). SIR results should be interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the indirect comparison between clinical data and claims data (eg, coding differences and surveillance bias). Conclusion: CV ischemic events were reported in 4% of DAS- and 2% of IM-treated pts in DASISION, 4% of DAS-treated pts in the pooled population, and 2% of DAS- and 1% of placebo-treated pts in READY. In all populations, among pts who experienced an event, the majority had a history of arterial ischemic events and/or risk factors for atherosclerosis, and most events occurred early. SIRs suggest that the total number of CV ischemic events among DAS-treated pts was not higher than expected, and in contrast to what has been observed with other TKIs, largely restricted to 1 y after initiating therapy. Disclosures Saglio: Pfizer: Consultancy, Fees for occasional speeches, Fees for occasional speeches Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Fees for occasional speeches, Fees for occasional speeches Other; ARIAD: Consultancy, Fees for occasional speeches, Fees for occasional speeches Other; BMS: Consultancy, Fees for occasional speeches Other. Off Label Use: Dasatinib is approved for first line use in adults with chronic phase Ph+ CML, and in adult AP- or BP-CML, and Ph+ ALL patients who are resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. le Coutre:ARIAD: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cortes:Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mayer:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mahon:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer : Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kroog:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Gooden:Bristol Myers Squibb: Employment. Subar:Bristol Myers Squibb: Employment. Preston:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Shah:ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2021-002994
Author(s):  
Bianca Viljoen ◽  
Michael S Hofman ◽  
Suzanne K Chambers ◽  
Jeff Dunn ◽  
Haryana Dhillon ◽  
...  

ObjectivesNested qualitative studies within clinical trials provide the opportunity to better understand participant experiences of participation and identify areas where improved support is required. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial; a randomised trial of 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel chemotherapy.MethodsFifteen men with advanced prostate cancer were recruited from the TheraP clinical trial and interviewed at three time points during the trial. Interviews were inductively analysed using thematic analysis. This research paper reports the results from the baseline interview at commencement of the trial, focusing specifically on participants’ enrolment experiences.ResultsFour themes were identified representing the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer deciding to participate in the TheraP trial: (1) hoping to survive; (2) needing to feel informed; (3) choosing to participate and (4) being randomised. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is filled with indecision, emotional difficulties and focused on a desire to live.ConclusionsFor men with advanced prostate cancer, the experience of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is principally driven by a desire to survive but interlinked with the need to make an informed decision as participants in this study expressed a preference for allocation to the experimental arm. Men seeking to enrol in clinical trials of new prostate cancer treatments would benefit from improved informational and decision support.Trial registration numberNCT03392428, ANZUP1603.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria I. Carlo ◽  
Veda N. Giri ◽  
Channing J. Paller ◽  
Wassim Abida ◽  
Joshi J. Alumkal ◽  
...  

Purpose Advances in germline genetics, and related therapeutic opportunities, present new opportunities and challenges in prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium Germline Genetics Working Group was established to address genetic testing for men with prostate cancer, especially those with advanced disease undergoing testing for treatment-related objectives and clinical trials. Methods The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium Germline Genetics Working Group met monthly to discuss the current state of genetic testing of men with prostate cancer for therapeutic or clinical trial purposes. We assessed current institutional practices, developed a framework to address unique challenges in this population, and identified areas of future research. Results Genetic testing practices in men with prostate cancer vary across institutions; however, there were several areas of agreement. The group recognized the clinical benefits of expanding germline genetic testing, beyond cancer risk assessment, for the goal of treatment selection or clinical trial eligibility determination. Genetic testing for treatment selection should ensure patients receive appropriate pretest education and consent and occur under auspices of a research study whenever feasible. Providers offering genetic testing should be able to interpret results and recommend post-test genetic counseling for patients. When performing tumor (somatic) genomic profiling, providers should discuss the potential for uncovering germline mutations and recommend appropriate genetic counseling. In addition, family members may benefit from cascade testing and early cancer screening and prevention strategies. Conclusion As germline genetic testing is incorporated into practice, further development is needed in establishing prompt testing for time-sensitive treatment decisions, integrating cascade testing for family, ensuring equitable access to testing, and elucidating the role of less-characterized germline DNA damage repair genes, individual gene-level biologic consequences, and treatment response prediction in advanced disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document