MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2886557345 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-17-a100

Abstract A100: Seamless phase I/II clinical trials in oncology: retrospective analysis of the last 7 years

2018· article· en· W2886557345 sur OpenAlexaff
Pedro Barata, Brian P. Hobbs, Brian I. Rini, Channing J. Paller, Daniel P. Normolle, Elizabeth Garrett‐Mayer, Eric H. Rubin, Gary L. Rosner, Gregory R. Pond, Jane Perlmutter, Lesley Seymour, Lillian L. Siu, Nolan A. Wages, Percy Ivy, Tatiana M. Prowell, Timothy A. Yap, David S. Hong

Notice bibliographique

RevueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineClinical trialInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchClinical OncologyPopulationOncologyFood and drug administrationCancerDrug developmentSample size determinationDrugPharmacology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Drug development has evolved from the conventional sequence of three-phase clinical trial process to a seamless approach of adding cohorts to first-in-human trials to investigate both safety and efficacy in various cancers. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the prevalence of large early-phase studies in adult cancer patients; described the clinical characteristics, design, and statistical plan of these studies; and identified which investigational drugs using this seamless strategy were included in the accelerated approval program by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: All abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meetings from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. Clinical studies conducted in the pediatric population as well as abstracts reporting trials in progress were excluded. Seamless clinical trials were defined as any phase I/II studies with a sample size of 100 or more patients. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) drug approvals report was used to access the list of drugs included in the accelerated approval program by FDA. Results: We identified a total of 1786 early-phase trials enrolling more than 57,500 patients with malignant neoplasms. More frequently these studies included patients with advanced solid tumors (87%) and targeted therapy and immunotherapy agents were investigated in 64% and 15% of the cases, respectively. Of the 1786 trials, 51 were identified as seamless phase I/II with a sample size of 100 or more patients, representing only 3% of the total number of trials (n=1786) but 15% of the total number of patients (n=57,559). These seamless trials had a median number of 3 (1-13) expansion cohorts and a higher fraction (65%) were presented in the last 3 years (2014-2017), compared with 35% of the studies with results presented between 2010-2013. Fifty active investigational new drugs (67% targeted therapy, 18% immunotherapy, 10% antibody-drug conjugate, 2.0% chemotherapy, 3.9% other) were studied as single agents (53%) or in combination with other therapies (47%). Of the 51 identified large seamless phase I/II trials, only 29 (57%) studies had published results. Further, of these 29 studies, a planned statistical analysis for the calculation of the expansion cohorts’ sample-size was not available in 69% of the cases. The overall rate of significant (grade 3-4) adverse events was 49% (range, 0-100%), and at least one toxic death was reported in 5 of these studies. The pooled response rate (CR+PR) per study was 20% (range, 0.9-77). Considering the group of drugs studied in the 51-seamless phase I/II trials identified here, the FDA granted accelerated approval to 8 drugs and 1 other agent was given priority review. Conclusions: Approximately two-thirds of the studies identified were presented after the year 2014, suggesting an increased use of the seamless approach. While the high rate of accelerated approvals granted by the FDA endorses the observed preliminary clinical benefit of these drugs, the absence of a prespecified statistical plan is a weakness of most of the published studies. Citation Format: Pedro Barata, Brian Hobbs, Brian Rini, Channing Paller, Dan Normolle, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Eric Rubin, Gary Rosner, Greg Pond, Jane Perlmutter, Lesley Seymour, Lillian Siu, Nolan Wages, Percy Ivy, Tatiana Prowell, Timothy Yap, David Hong. Seamless phase I/II clinical trials in oncology: retrospective analysis of the last 7 years [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A100.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,038
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,202

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0380,109
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0090,012
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,431
Écart entre enseignants0,363 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsMême sujetCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207