Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials

Background: The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials. Objective: The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview about the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials. Methods: In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise. Results: The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided. Conclusion: There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives, for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused considerable global disruption to clinical practice. This article will review the impact that the pandemic has had on oncology clinical trials. It will assess the effect of the COVID-19 situation on the initial presentation and investigation of patients with suspected cancer. It will also review the impact of the pandemic on the subsequent management of cancer patients, and how clinical trial approval, recruitment, and conduct were affected during the pandemic. An intriguing aspect of the pandemic is that clinical trials investigating treatments for COVID-19 and vaccinations against the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, have been approved and conducted at an unprecedented speed. In light of this, this review will also discuss the potential that this enhanced regulatory environment could have on the running of oncology clinical trials in the future.

Independently validated sex-specific nomograms for predicting survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: NRG Oncology RTOG 0525 and 0825

Background/purpose Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor. Sex has been shown to be an important prognostic factor for GBM. The purpose of this study was to develop and independently validate sex-specific nomograms for estimation of individualized GBM survival probabilities using data from 2 independent NRG Oncology clinical trials. Methods This analysis included information on 752 (NRG/RTOG 0525) and 599 (NRG/RTOG 0825) patients with newly diagnosed GBM. The Cox proportional hazard models by sex were developed using NRG/RTOG 0525 and significant variables were identified using a backward selection procedure. The final selected models by sex were then independently validated using NRG/RTOG 0825. Results Final nomograms were built by sex. Age at diagnosis, KPS, MGMT promoter methylation and location of tumor were common significant predictors of survival for both sexes. For both sexes, tumors in the frontal lobes had significantly better survival than tumors of multiple sites. Extent of resection, and use of corticosteroids were significant predictors of survival for males. Conclusions A sex specific nomogram that assesses individualized survival probabilities (6-, 12- and 24-months) for patients with GBM could be more useful than estimation of overall survival as there are factors that differ between males and females. A user friendly online application can be found here—https://npatilshinyappcalculator.shinyapps.io/SexDifferencesInGBM/.

Diarrhea in Placebo Arms of Cancer Studies

Background/Aim: Diarrhea is among the most common adverse events in early oncology clinical trials, and drug causality may be difficult to determine. Materials and Methods: This is a systematic literature review of placebo arms of randomized cancer trials. Results: Anemia was reported in 95 of 127 placebo monotherapy cohorts. Publications involving healthy volunteers and cancer prevention studies reported lower frequencies than those with cancer patients. The average reported frequency of diarrhea grade 1 or higher among studies in cancer patients was 15%. The maximal reported frequencies for grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were 56, 24, 6, 2, and 0%, respectively. Conclusion: When higher diarrhea frequencies than those are observed in treatment arms of clinical trials, then drug causality is likely.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused considerable global disruption to clinical practice. This article will review the impact that the pandemic has had on oncology clinical trials. It will assess the effect of the COVID-19 situation on the initial presentation and investigation of patients with suspected cancer. It will also discuss the impact of the pandemic on the subsequent management of cancer patients and how clinical trial approval, recruitment and conduct were affected during the pandemic. An intriguing aspect of the pandemic is that clinical trials investigating treatments for COVID-19 and vaccinations against the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, have been approved and conducted at unprecedented speed. In light of this, this re-view will also discuss the potential that this enhanced regulatory environment could have on the running of oncology clinical trials in the future.

Importance and role of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) in oncology clinical trials

The role and use of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) has evolved over the past decades. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have issued guidelines on the role and functioning of such committees. In general, data monitoring committees are recommended for large, often randomised clinical trials involving life-threatening diseases, studies performed in vulnerable populations or where the experimental intervention can potentially harm the trial participant. Such committees play an important role in trials evaluating treatments with the potential to prolong life or reduce the risk of major adverse health outcomes.Typically, oncology clinical trials fall within these recommendations, as they are often large, randomised, multicentric protocols aiming at improving survival outcomes by exploring the use of study treatments that may be associated with a significant risk of serious, even life-threatening adverse events. IDMCs are required for National Cancer Institute phase III randomised trials, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase II/III trials with formal interim analyses, early-stopping rules or adaptive studies. The primary role of an IDMC of ensuring the safety of study participants and maintaining clinical trial integrity is particularly important in oncology trials, due to the nature of the disease, the potential for treatment toxicity and for instilling confidence that the clinical trial data are reliable. A clear understanding by IDMC members of the natural course of the disease, treatment landscape, importance and relevance of certain adverse events in trial participants, clinical trial methodology in general and stopping rules for oncology trials in particular, is crucial for the functioning of an IDMC.It is recommended that IDMC members should be experienced trialists, have a track record of strong clinical, statistical and/or methodological expertise and the required level of independence, as they play a highly important role in the protection of study participants, and in commercially and strategically important go/no decisions. Ideally, IDMC members should have relevant experience or have some training, mentorship or guidelines.