Abstract PO1-11-02: Reporting of Post-protocol Therapies in Metastatic Breast Cancer Registration Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND As the treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often includes sequential lines of therapy, data on post-protocol treatment in clinical trials are valuable in the assessment of long-term outcome. The objective of this study was to assess the reported data on post-protocol therapy in clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs for MBC. METHODS We identified all initial and subsequent published trials supporting FDA approved indications for MBC between 1/2000-2/2023. Collected data included study design, patient characteristics and whether reporting on post-protocol therapy was available. Differences in study design and population between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy were evaluated. FINDINGS A total of 41 indications for MBC were identified. Supporting studies comprised 20,152 patients. Data were evaluated from 241 publications or abstracts. Reporting of post progression therapy was available for 21 (51%) indications. Of these, post-progression therapy data were often partial and the appropriateness of the therapy could not be evaluated. At the time of FDA approval, data on overall survival (OS) were reported only in 17 (41%) studies. Of these, in 8 studies OS was significantly improved, in 7 studies OS was not improved and 2 studies were single arm. Differences between studies with and without data on post progression therapy are presented in the Table. Studies with OS as their primary endpoints were associated with significantly higher reporting of post-protocol therapy, while studies with both OS and progression free survival (PFS) as their primary endpoint had low reporting rate. There were no other statistically significant differences. Reporting post-protocol therapy has not changed over time with reported data in 50% and 52% studies between 2000-2010 and 2011-2023, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Data on post progression therapy in trials supporting FDA approval of drugs for MBC are available in fewer than half of indications. Reported data are often partial and may not include sequential therapies consistent with standard of care. As subsequent lines of therapy may have a crucial role in patients' outcome, post protocol reporting should be included in the regulatory submission and be made available publicly. Differences between studies with and without data on post progression therapy Citation Format: Shlomit Shachar, Yasmin Korzets, Daniel Shepshelovich, Noa Zlotchover, Eitan Amir, Ariadna Tibau, Hadar Goldvaser. Reporting of Post-protocol Therapies in Metastatic Breast Cancer Registration Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-11-02.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,100 | 0,383 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».