Accuracy of adverse event reporting on a phase III clinical trial for pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10028-10028
Author(s):  
Tamara P. Miller ◽  
Yimei Li ◽  
Marko Kavcic ◽  
Todd Allen Alonzo ◽  
Matt Hall ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanthi Sivendran ◽  
Asma Latif ◽  
Russell B. McBride ◽  
Kristian D. Stensland ◽  
Juan Wisnivesky ◽  
...  

Purpose Reporting adverse events is a critical element of a clinical trial publication. In 2003, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group generated recommendations regarding the appropriate reporting of adverse events. The degree to which these recommendations are followed in oncology publications has not been comprehensively evaluated. Methods A review of citations from PubMed, Medline, and Embase published between Jan 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, identified eligible randomized, controlled phase III trials in metastatic solid malignancies. Publications were assessed for 14 adverse event–reporting elements derived from the CONSORT harms extension statement; a completeness score (range, 0 to 14) was calculated by adding the number of elements reported. Linear regression analysis identified which publication characteristics associated with reporting completeness. Results A total of 175 publications, with data for 96,125 patients, were included in the analysis. The median completeness score was eight (range, three to 12). Most publications (96%) reported only adverse events occurring above a threshold rate or severity, 37% did not specify the criteria used to select which adverse events were reported, and 88% grouped together adverse events of varying severity. Regression analysis revealed that trials without a stated funding source and with an earlier year of publication had significantly lower completeness scores. Conclusion Reporting of adverse events in oncology publications of randomized trials is suboptimal and characterized by substantial selectivity and heterogeneity. The development of oncology-specific standards for adverse event reporting should be established to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 931-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara P. Miller ◽  
Marko Kavcic ◽  
Yimei Li ◽  
Todd A. Alonzo ◽  
Matt Hall ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Cooperative group oncology trials have led to dramatic improvements in outcomes for children with cancer, but the current method of reporting adverse events (AEs) is inefficient and potentially ineffective. Like all cooperative oncology groups, AEs on Children's Oncology Group (COG) clinical trials are reported by clinical research associates via case report forms using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria system. Despite the extensive resources needed for AE reporting, there is evidence that AEs may not be accurately reported. However, there are no data on the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of AE reporting on pediatric or adult cooperative group oncology trials. This study sought to determine these operating characteristics for AE reporting for COG clinical trial AAML0531, the most recently completed clinical trial for de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in children. Methods Chart abstraction was performed by a single pediatric oncologist on patients enrolled on COG clinical trial AAML0531 at 5 hospitals in the United States. Presence or absence of the following 12 grade III or higher AEs was determined for each hospital day: hypertension, hypotension, hypoxia, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), anorexia, typhlitis, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), microbiologically proven viridans group streptococcal bacteremia (VGS), microbiologically proven invasive fungal infection (IFI), pain, seizure, and acute renal failure. The definitions for the gold standard of chart abstraction were defined a priori. Using the daily AE assessments based on chart review, the presence or absence of each toxicity was determined for each chemotherapy course. These data were then merged with COG adverse event data that includes grade III or higher toxicities for each patient by chemotherapy course. The percentages of chemotherapy courses with each toxicity were determined for chart abstraction and COG data. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for COG AE reporting of the 12 toxicities were determined by comparing to the gold standard of chart abstraction data. Age, gender, race and ethnicity were determined from COG data. Results COG clinical trial AAML0531 enrolled 1028 patients between August 14, 2006 and June 15, 2010. Chart abstraction was performed on 99 of these patients (373 courses). Compared to all patients enrolled on AAML0531, the 99 patients were younger (mean age 8.0 vs. 9.3 years, p = 0.04), and a larger percentage was African American (18.2% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.05). No differences were observed in gender (female: 48.5% vs. 50.4%, p = 0.72) or ethnicity (Hispanic: 18.2% vs. 18.4%, p = 0.96). In the COG AE report, the rates of toxicities ranged from 0.3% of courses (seizure) to 18.8% of courses (anorexia). In the chart abstraction data the rates of toxicities ranged from 0% of courses (seizure) to 37.0% of courses (pain). Table 1 shows the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the 12 targeted toxicities. For toxicities with 10 or more identified events, the sensitivity of COG data ranged from 18.2% (DIC) to 70.0% (hypotension). Of significant concern, sensitivity was less than or equal to 50% for eight toxicities, including hypertension (38.5%), hypoxia (25.3%), anorexia (49.6%), VGS (49.2%), and pain (21.7%). The PPV ranged from 50% (IFI and ARDS) to 100% (DIC and renal failure). Conclusions In this cohort of 99 patients treated on COG clinical trial AAML0531, the sensitivity of COG adverse event reporting was relatively low for all but one AE and was less than or equal to 50% for eight of the 12 targeted toxicities. Although PPV was high for most toxicities, it was not 100% for many, indicating that false positive results occur for nearly all of the evaluated AEs. This data demonstrates that the current system of AE reporting on cooperative group oncology trials has modest sensitivity and a demonstrable false positive rate. Work is ongoing to further refine these estimates and to develop improved AE reporting methodologies. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 1936-1951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghav Dogra ◽  
Rohit Bhatia ◽  
Ravi Shankar ◽  
Parveen Bansal ◽  
Ravindra K. Rawal

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia is the collective name for different types of leukemias of myeloid origin affecting blood and bone marrow. The overproduction of immature myeloblasts (white blood cells) is the characteristic feature of AML, thus flooding the bone marrow and reducing its capacity to produce normal blood cells. USFDA on August 1, 2017, approved a drug named Enasidenib formerly known as AG-221 which is being marketed under the name Idhifa to treat R/R AML with IDH2 mutation. The present review depicts the broad profile of enasidenib including various aspects of chemistry, preclinical, clinical studies, pharmacokinetics, mode of action and toxicity studies. Methods: Various reports and research articles have been referred to summarize different aspects related to chemistry and pharmacokinetics of enasidenib. Clinical data was collected from various recently published clinical reports including clinical trial outcomes. Result: The various findings of enasidenib revealed that it has been designed to allosterically inhibit mutated IDH2 to treat R/R AML patients. It has also presented good safety and efficacy profile along with 9.3 months overall survival rates of patients in which disease has relapsed. The drug is still under study either in combination or solely to treat hematological malignancies. Molecular modeling studies revealed that enasidenib binds to its target through hydrophobic interaction and hydrogen bonding inside the binding pocket. Enasidenib is found to be associated with certain adverse effects like elevated bilirubin level, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, decreased potassium and calcium levels, etc. Conclusion: Enasidenib or AG-221was introduced by FDA as an anticancer agent which was developed as a first in class, a selective allosteric inhibitor of the tumor target i.e. IDH2 for Relapsed or Refractory AML. Phase 1/2 clinical trial of Enasidenib resulted in the overall survival rate of 40.3% with CR of 19.3%. Phase III trial on the Enasidenib is still under process along with another trial to test its potency against other cell lines. Edasidenib is associated with certain adverse effects, which can be reduced by investigators by designing its newer derivatives on the basis of SAR studies. Hence, it may come in the light as a potent lead entity for anticancer treatment in the coming years.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (14) ◽  
pp. 3187-3195 ◽  
Author(s):  
George S. Laszlo ◽  
Todd A. Alonzo ◽  
Chelsea J. Gudgeon ◽  
Kimberly H. Harrington ◽  
Robert B. Gerbing ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 4454-4464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajaram Nagarajan ◽  
Robert Gerbing ◽  
Todd Alonzo ◽  
Donna L. Johnston ◽  
Richard Aplenc ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document