Eligibility of real-world patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) in adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 50-50
Author(s):  
Atul Batra ◽  
Shiying Kong ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung

50 Background: The results of AC trials in stage II/III CRC are often generalized to real-world patients. However, clinical trials have stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, which can potentially lead to poor generalizability of results and slow accrual. This study was conducted to determine the proportion of real-world patients with stage II/ III CRC who would be eligible for AC trials based on common eligibility criteria and to compare the outcomes in eligible and ineligible patients. Methods: We identified all patients diagnosed with stage II/III CRC in 2004-2015 from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patients meeting any one of the following criteria were considered ineligible: age >75 years, anemia, comorbid conditions (heart disease, uncontrolled diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease) and history of a prior malignancy or immunosuppression. Logistic regression was used to describe the likelihood of receiving AC and Cox regression models were constructed to determine overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 7841 patients with stage II/III CRC were identified, of whom 52% were men and median age at diagnosis was 71 years (IQR: 61-79 years). Approximately 59% patients were deemed trial-ineligible and the most common reasons for ineligibility were advanced age (36%), renal dysfunction (27%), and cardiac disease (17%), respectively. In the real-world, 54% of eligible patients received AC as compared to 23% of ineligible patients [odds ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.53-4.28, P< 0.0001]. The 5-year OS of trial-ineligible patients who received AC was significantly better than those treated with surgery alone (table). Conclusions: Majority of real-world patients with stage II/ III CRC are unable to participate in AC trials due to strict exclusion criteria, but a fair proportion of these patients still derive some benefit from AC. The eligibility criteria of AC trials in CRC should be broadened to be more representative of real-world patients. [Table: see text]

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 93-93
Author(s):  
Atul Batra ◽  
Shiying Kong ◽  
Rodrigo Rigo ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung

93 Background: Due to highly selective enrollment in clinical trials, the generalizability of results may be limited. This study aimed to identify the proportion of real-world patients with metastatic lung cancer (MLC) eligible to participate in a clinical trial. Methods: We identified patients diagnosed with MLC in a large Canadian province from 2004 to 2017. Ineligibility to participate in a clinical trial was defined by common exclusion criteria: age > 75 years, anemia, comorbid conditions (heart disease, uncontrolled diabetes, kidney disease, or liver disease) and history of a prior malignancy or immunosuppression. Logistic regression models were used to describe the likelihood of receiving systemic therapy and Cox regression models were constructed to determine the association of trial ineligibility with overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 13,996 patients were included; the median age was 70 years and 46.9% were women. Of these, 8,615 (61.6%) were trial-ineligible. The common reasons for ineligibility were age > 75 years (11.5%), abnormal renal function (8.3%) and prior immunosuppression (3.2%). Further, 32.3% of patients were ineligible by multiple exclusion criteria. In the real-world, 40.6% and 21.8% of trial-eligible and ineligible patients received systemic therapy (P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, trial-ineligible patients had lower odds of receiving systemic therapy (odds ratio, .84; 95% confidence interval [CI], .76-.92; P < .001). At a median follow-up of 66.2 months, the median OS of trial-eligible patients was 5.1 months as compared to 2.9 months in those deemed ineligible (P < .001). Receipt of systemic therapy was associated with longer OS in both trial-eligible (10.5 vs 2.7 months, P < .001) and ineligible (9.3 vs 2.1 months, P < .001) patients. In a Cox regression model that adjusted for age, sex and systemic therapy, ineligibility was predictive of worse OS. Conclusions: More than half of patients with MLC are ineligible to participate in clinical trials. Real-world use of systemic therapy was generally low, but its use was associated with improvement in OS even among individuals considered trial-ineligible. Clinical trials should broaden their eligibility criteria to better represent the phenotype of real-world patients so that findings are more generalizable. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4003-4003
Author(s):  
Augusta Eduafo ◽  
Leland Metheny ◽  
Ravi Kyasaram ◽  
Farhad Sanati ◽  
James J. Driscoll ◽  
...  

Abstract Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence to define the efficacy of newly developed treatments before their adoption into clinical practice. RCTs incorporate exclusion criteria that eliminate specific patient populations in order to reduce the incidence of serious adverse events and enhance the efficacy of a given anti-cancer strategy. However, exclusion criteria may lead to a significant gap between patients (pts) enrolled on RCTs and real world pt populations, which represent the ultimate stakeholders in cancer treatment. The analysis of real-world evidence to answer clinical questions has recently gained increased interest. Assessing different dimensions of this gap may help overcome barriers in trial recruitment and enhance the applicability of RCTs in daily practice. There has been significant advancement in treating multiple myeloma (MM) over the past two decades bringing multiple new mechanisms of action to the bedside. We selected ten recent RCTs: ASPIRE, TOURMALNE-MM01, ELOQUENT-2, ENDEAVOR, POLLUX and CASTOR, OCEAN, ICARIA, APOLLO and ELOQUENT-3 studies, which are pharma-sponsored landmark trials that provided the basis for FDA approval of anti-myeloma agents. Our objective was to quantify the gap in eligibility criteria between the ten RCTs and real world populations by examining these trials using a single institution database. Methods: Pts with relapsed MM that were initiated on a second (or later line) of therapy that were recognized, retrospectively. Eligibility criteria of the ten landmark RCTs was applied during the 21 day period before the index treatment date. Pts that received Len-containing regimens were tested as to be enrolled on trials with Len/Dex control arm, patients that received Bor-containing regimens were examined to be enrolled on Bor/Dex trials and subjects who had Pom-containing regimen were screened for Pom/Dex trials. Pts were then classified as "Trial eligible" or "Trial ineligible", accordingly and were monitored longitudinally from the index treatment date until death, loss to follow-up, or end of the follow up period. Ten commonly used eligibility criteria were examined (Fig. 1). Any cancer in the three years prior to the index treatment date was counted as "history of other malignancies", i.e., skin and prostate cancer were excluded. Concurrent infection was defined as use of any antibiotic other than acyclovir, ciprofloxacin or bactrim. To calculate area under the curve of the polygon graphs Shoelace algorithm was used. Results : 516 pts were studied between 2010 and 2020 and 153 were excluded due to missing values. 224, 136 and 98 pts were treated with Len-, Bor- or Pom-containing regimens, respectively. Overall, the trial-eligible cohort was more likely to have autologous stem cell transplant and to have had longer treatment-free period before index treatment date (p-value: 0.009). There was a substantial variation in the ineligibility rate for these ten RCTs among the study population (Fig. 1). The most common items that excluded a patient from a RCT were: other malignancy, current infection and renal dysfunction. Differences between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible pts stratified by trial are listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for trials with Len, Bor and Pom as control arms, respectively. The median follow-up for the Len, Bor and Pom cohorts was 31, 30 and 22 months, respectively. Trial-ineligible pts displayed a significantly worse OS (2-year rate 58% vs. 78%, p-value: 0.001) and 49% higher chance of death (HR 1.69, 90%, CI: 1.17-2.62) compared with trial-eligible cohort. Conclusion: Here, we assessed the multidimensional gap that exists between patient cohorts enrolled on RCTs and real world cohorts for ten landmark MM trials. We present a quantitative deviation score as a tool to calibrate the generalizability of these landmark trials against a single institution. Importantly, we show that trial-eligibility alone significantly correlates with superior OS across a variety of MM clinical trials across all ten MM RCTs. Furthermore, our results reveal that ineligibility rates were quite different among the ten trials which significantly limit cross-trial comparisons. We propose a uniform methodology to assess patient exclusion criteria and narrow the efficacy gap observed between RCTs and real world evidence. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Metheny: Pharmacosmos: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Malek: Medpacto Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cumberland Inc.: Research Funding; Bluespark Inc.: Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Board.


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Dyball ◽  
Sophie Collinson ◽  
Emily Sutton ◽  
Eoghan McCarthy ◽  
Ben Parker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Aims  Stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria are employed in SLE clinical trials. Organ dysfunction and co-morbidities are common exclusion criteria which may affect how representative trials are of real-world SLE populations. We aimed to apply published trial eligibility criteria to patients with SLE in a large national register. Methods  A literature review of all major published double-blinded randomised phase III trials in non-renal SLE was performed. Common inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to all patients recruited to the BILAG-Biologics Register (BILAG-BR), a large UK-wide register of SLE patients. Data on comorbidities for all patients registered was collected. The mean (SD) number of co-morbidities was calculated. Patients were then classified as being eligible or ineligible. Groups were compared initially using a chi-squared or Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression model was used to test the age and sex adjusted association between trial eligibility and comorbidities. Results  Common inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified from 12 published trials. When applied to the 837 patients recruited to BILAG-BR, 562 (67%) patients would not be eligible for inclusion in these trials. Ineligible patients had a shorter disease duration (2.9 vs. 5.1 years, p &lt; 0.01), but were similar in age (P = 1.0), sex (P = 0.7) and ethnicity (p = 0.5) to those who were eligible. Of eligible patients, 128 (53%) had 1 or more comorbidities compared with 340 (60%) who were ineligible (p = 0.05). The mean (SD) number of comorbidities was 0.9 (1.2) vs 1.2 (1.3) for eligible and ineligible patients respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, inclusion in clinical trials was associated with fewer comorbidities (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.94, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusion  Patients with multi-morbidity are more likely to be ineligible for SLE clinical trials. Evidence from real world studies and registers are therefore needed to fully understand the safety and effectiveness of new therapies. Our data also underscores the need to develop more pragmatic eligibility criteria for clinical trials. Disclosure  S. Dyball: None. S. Collinson: None. E. Sutton: None. E. McCarthy: None. B. Parker: Consultancies; GSK, AstraZenica, UCB, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS, Celltrion. Grants/research support; GSK, Sanofi Genzyme. I. Bruce: Consultancies; GSK, Medimmune, AstraZenica, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, UCB, ILTOO. Member of speakers’ bureau; AstraZeneca, Medimmune, GSK, UCB. Grants/research support; GSK, Genzyme Sanofi, UCB.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanwoo Yoo ◽  
Prabhjot Grewal ◽  
Aikaterini Papamanoli ◽  
Azad Mojahedi ◽  
Jacquelyn Nakamura ◽  
...  

Introduction: The value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Hypothesis: Elevated NT-proBNP is associated with worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients regardless of history of HF. Methods: We evaluated the in-hospital course of 469 adults admitted to Stony Brook University Hospital, NY, from March 1 to April 15, 2020 with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (need for high-flow O 2 ). We excluded patients who required mechanical ventilation (MV) or died within 24h of admission. We used Cox regression models to examine the association of admission NT-proBNP with mortality and the composite of death or MV. Results: Admission NT-proBNP was available in 399 patients (85.1%) of this cohort. Table 1 summarizes the patient characteristics according to history of HF (41/399 [10.3%]). After a median of 13 days (8-22), 107 patients (26.8%) died and 86 additional patients (21.6%) required MV and survived. Both HF (HR 3.65; 95%CI 2.32-5.77; P<0.001) and admission NT-proBNP (HR per log-2 [doubling] 1.35; 95%CI 1.27-1.44; P<0.001) were strongly associated with mortality. In models adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, and baseline 0 2 saturation, every log-2 higher admission NT-proBNP was associated with 28% higher mortality in patients with HF (HR 1.28; 95%CI 1.02-1.61; P=0.037) and 26% higher mortality in patients without HF (HR 1.26; 95%CI 1.14-1.40; P<0.001), P for interaction 0.92. Admission NT-proBNP was also associated with the composite of death or MV in the entire cohort (adjusted HR per log-2 1.09; 95%CI 1.02-1.17; P=0.017). Conclusions: In these high-risk COVID-19 patients, admission NT-proBNP was strongly predictive of mortality regardless of HF. Elevated NT-proBNP may thus identify patients in need of cardioprotective measures.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 486-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khodadad Rasool Javaheri ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Daniel John Renouf ◽  
Howard John Lim ◽  
Tina Hsu ◽  
...  

486 Background: Trials have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to maintain internal validity. However, study findings are often applied to pts in clinical practice who do not satisfy all of the CTEC. Whether these pts benefit from treatment is unclear. Our objectives were 1) to characterize cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in a population-based cohort of trial-eligible (TE) and trial-ineligible (TI) pts receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and 2) to compare their outcomes with those not treated with CT. Methods: Pts diagnosed with stage III CC between 2006 and 2008, referred to 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia, and evaluated for possible adjuvant CT within 12 weeks of curative surgery were reviewed. Pts were defined as TE if aged 18 to 79 years, ECOG 0 to 1, CEA <10 ng/ml, had not received prior CT or radiation, and had adequate blood counts, cardiac, liver, and kidney function. All other pts were considered TI. Using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, we compared outcomes between TE and TI pts who received CT vs. those who did not. Results: A total of 821 pts were identified: median age was 68 years, 52% were men, 85% were ECOG 0 to1, and 71% received adjuvant CT. Among pts treated with CT, 405 (70%) were TE and 177 (30%) were TI. Compared to TI pts, those who were TE were younger (p<0.01) and more likely to receive FOLFOX than capecitabine (65 vs. 46%, p<0.01). CSS and OS were significantly different among pts who were TE, TI, and those who did not receive CT (p<0.01) (Table). In multivariate analyses that adjusted for confounders, both TI pts and those not treated with CT had worse prognoses than TE pts (HR for CC deaths 1.32, 95%CI 0.86-2.02 and 2.77, 95%CI 1.92-3.99, respectively, p trend <0.01; HR for all deaths 1.24, 95%CI 0.85-1.80 and 2.95, 95%CI 2.17-4.00, respectively, p trend <0.01). Conclusions: A considerable number of stage III CC pts who did not fit CTEC were treated with adjuvant CT. While outcomes in the TI group were worse than those in the TE group, CSS and OS were still better than the subset that did not receive any CT. [Table: see text]


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 754-754
Author(s):  
Jy Ming Chiang ◽  
Hsin Yuan Hung

754 Background: In clinical practice, choosing oral chemotherapy or FOLFOX may depend to drug toxicity and patients’ age and comorbidities, in addition to heterogeneous stage III colon cancer. The benefit of oxaliplatin in the real world practice remained further clarified. Methods: 688 stage III colon cancer patients were collected. Treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared based on the type of chemotherapy in terms of OS and DFS. Multivariate Cox-regression modeling was used to adjust for the potential confounders. Results: This study included capecitabine (259 patients), fluorouracil-leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) (283 patients) and Tegafur-uracil(146 patients). Comparing patients with capecitabine and tegafur regimens, patients receiving FOLFOX were significantly younger (mean age 56.5 yrs v.s. 65,1 yrs and 66,9 yrs ), more poor differentiation (15.9% v.s. 8.1% and 8.2%), deeper tumor invasion (T4 lesion 25.1% v.s. 15.8% and 17.1%), more advanced nodal involvement (N2/3 51.9% v.s. 18.1% and 20.5%) and had less comorbidity (50.2% v.s. 61.4% and 65.1%). Rate of completeness of chemotherapies (88.0% v.s. 87.6% and 81.5%) was no significant difference. Comparing treatment outcome, by univariate analysis, demonstrated significant (p = 0.0258) difference in OS for N2/3 patients but no difference in N1 patiens. However, by balancing confounding factors including co-morbidities, multivariate analysis showed that impact on overall survival in patients receiving capecitabine was statistically significant better than Tegafur (HR = 0.59, p = 0. 03) while no difference comparing with FOLFOX regimen (HR = 0.76, p = 0.3219). However, disease free survival (DFS) was no significantly different for FOLFOX comparing with capecitabine HR 0.97 and Tegafur HR 0.89 by multivariate Cox regression analyses. Conclusions: As post-operative adjuvant setting, oral chemotherapy either Capecitabine or Tegafur-uracil showed similar effectiveness as folfox in terms of DFS while in terms of OS, Capecitabine demonstrated similar effectiveness to folfox but better than Tegafur-urecil.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 82-82
Author(s):  
Clara Wan ◽  
Nicole E. Caston ◽  
Stacey A. Ingram ◽  
Gabrielle Betty Rocque

82 Background: Clinical trials play an important role in advancing cancer treatments. Unfortunately, only about 3% of adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial in the United States due to various barriers to enrollment. This includes restrictive eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria. Methods: This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) between 2004-2020. Exclusion criteria (e.g., laboratory values and comorbidities) were extracted from protocols using OnCore, an online dataset used to manage clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values or vital signs analyzed included liver function tests, hematologic labs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and hypertension. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, presence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and history of prior cancer. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from initial diagnosis or exacerbation-free. Results: There were a total of 102 eligible protocols. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in exclusion criteria across liver/hematologic laboratory values and demographic/comorbidity variables. Among liver laboratory values, most protocols included an upper limit of acceptable for bilirubin (78%): 9% used the institutional upper limit of normal (ULN), 2% used 1.2xULN, 3% used 1.25xULN, 56% used 1.5xULN, 6% used 2xULN, and 2% used 3xULN. Similar variability was observed in protocols that included alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count: 1% 500mcL, 11% used 1,000mcL, 4% used 1,200mcL, 1% used 1,250mcL, 64% used 1,500mcL, and 1% used 1,800mcL. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%) and a prior cancer (66%). While most protocols included cardiovascular disease, the allowable timeframe varied between protocols: 4% did not allow an acute exacerbation within the previous 3 months, 32% did not allow within the previous 6 months, 5% did not allow within the previous 12 months, and 38 % did not specify a time frame. Protocols including history of a prior cancer as a criterion similarly had varied definitions based on timeline. Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity was observed among clinical trial protocols. While exclusion criteria are necessary for patient safety, there is lack of evidence for current parameters. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.


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.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Augusta Eduafo ◽  
Leland Metheny ◽  
James Driscoll ◽  
Benjamin K. Tomlinson ◽  
Kirsten M Boughan ◽  
...  

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are imperative for testing novel cancer therapies and advancing the science of cancer care. Exclusion criteria are employed to minimize toxicity and maximize benefit. However, the selection process introduces a deviation between enrolled patients (pts) and the real world population. Estimating how much the selected population deviates from the MM cohort at large may increase inclusiveness and could help define barriers to recruiting to MM studies. There has been significant advancement in treating Multiple Myeloma (MM) during the last decade. Over 16 FDA-approved anti-myeloma regimens are now available. We selected the recent 6 RCTs (ASPIRE, TOURMALNE-MM01, ELOQUENT-2, ENDEAVOR, POLLUX and CASTOR studies) which were pharma-sponsored landmark trials that provided the basis for FDA approval of a new agent or established a new indication for formerly FDA-approved drug. We intended to quantify the gap between the trial population and real world by examining the eligibility criteria of these trials compared against a single institution database. Methods: Pts with relapsed MM initiating second or later line of therapy containing lenalidomide (Len) or bortezomib (Bor) were identified retrospectively. The 3-week period before the index treatment date was used to apply the eligibility criteria of the mentioned 6 trials. Pts who received Len-containing regimens were tested as to be enrolled on trials with Len/Dex control arm (ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, POLLUX, and ELOQUENT-2) and pts who had Bor-containing regimens were reviewed to be enrolled on Bor/Dex trials (CASTOR and ENDEAVOR). Pts were classified as "Trial eligible" or "Trial ineligible", accordingly. Pts were followed up longitudinally from the index treatment date until death, loss to follow-up, or the end of the study period (Jan, 2018). Ten frequently used eligibility criteria were studied (Fig-1). History of other malignancies, except skin and prostate cancer, was defined as any cancer requiring therapy other than anti-myeloma regimen in the 3 years prior to the index treatment date. Current infection referred to the use of any medication other than acyclovir, ciprofloxacin or Bactrim. Shoelace algorithm was used to calculate area under the curve of the polygon graphs. Results: 516 pts were studied between 2010 and 2018; 153 pts were excluded due to missing values, while 224 and 136 pts were treated with Len-containing and Bor-containing regimens, respectively. Overall, the trial-eligible cohort was more likely to have autologous stem cell transplant and to have had longer treatment-free period before index treatment date (p-value: 0.012). There was a substantial variation in the ineligibility rate for these 6 RCTs among the study population (Fig-1). The most common items that excluded a patient from a RCT were: Other malignancies, current infection and renal dysfunction. Within the Len cohort the trial-specific Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) threshold for renal function was highest in ASPIRE trial (Cr clearance&gt; 50 ml/min) causing high rate of exclusion (29% vs. 8% in other trials). Only TOURMOULINE-MM01 and ASPIRE trials had bor-refractory status as the exclusion criteria leading to 36% ineligibility rate. The differences between the trial-eligible and trial-ineligible pts stratified by trial are listed in Table-1 and 2 for trials with Len and Bor as the control arms, respectively. The median follow-up for the Len and Bor cohort was 31 and 30 months, respectively. The trial-ineligible pts had significantly worse OS (2-year survival rate 69% vs. 82%, P-value: 0.001) and 43% higher chance of death (hazard ratio 1.43, 90% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-2.02) compared with trail-eligible cohort. Conclusion: Here we assessed the eligibility criteria of 6 landmark MM studies and showed that ineligibility rates were quite different amongst these trials suggesting significant limitations in cross-trial comparison. Furthermore, trial-eligibility per se was associated with improved survival. We therefore proposed a quantitative deviation score calibrating the generalizability of the results of these trials to a single institution cohort. Such a tool can lead to efforts to broaden eligibility criteria and possibly narrow the gap between reported clinical trial efficacy and the observed effectiveness in real-world MM pts. Disclosures de Lima: Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding. Malek:Medpacto: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory board , Speakers Bureau; Bluespark: Research Funding; Cumberland: Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory board; Janssen: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Clegene: Other: Advisory board , Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 117956111985355
Author(s):  
Juan Antonio Galan-Llopis ◽  
Carlos Torrecilla-Ortiz ◽  
Maria Pilar Luque-Gálvez ◽  
Prevent-Lit Group ◽  
Xavier Peris-Nieto ◽  
...  

Introduction: We assessed the effectiveness of the joint use of a pH meter in combination with dietary supplements in restoring the urinary pH balance of patients with medical history of uric acid or calcium phosphate/calcium oxalate stones in real-world practice. Methods: An interventional, prospective, and open-label study was performed. At baseline visit, patients were assigned to a group according to the type of previous calculus and urinary pH: the alkalinizer group (uric acid stones and/or pH < 5.5) and acidifier group (calcium oxalate stones and/or pH > 6.2) received dietary supplement to increase or decrease, respectively, urinary pH. Patients were examined at baseline and after treatment for 30, 60, and 90 days. Urinary pH, type of therapy, compliance, and self-reported renal colic events were recorded at each visit. Results: The study included 143 patients, 45.5% in the alkalinizer group and 54.5% in the acidifier group, and the mean age was 53.60 years. Both nutraceuticals were significantly effective in normalizing urinary pH ( P < 0.00001) at all follow-up visits compared with baseline, with a maximum percentage of patients who achieved nonlithogenic pH (54.9%) at day 60 ( P < 0.00001). Analysis of the effect of treatment compliance at 60 days indicated that 71.8% of compliant and 45.9% of noncompliant patients achieved nonlithogenic pH (odds ratio [OR]: 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-6.66). A Cox-regression model indicated that nonlithogenic pH at 90 days (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.428, 95% CI: 0.193-0.947) and compliance at 60 days (HR: 0.428, 95% CI: 0.189-0.972) were independently associated with colic complaints-free survival. Conclusions: In patients with medical history of renal lithiasis, monitoring of pH in combination with dietary supplements may be useful in maintaining nonlithogenic pH values, yielding very high ratios of success, especially in compliant patients. Besides this main outcome, a reduction in self-reported colic complaints associated with pH balance was also observed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document