MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Do early phase trials predict clinical efficacy in subsequent phase III biomarker-enriched randomized trials?

2022· article· en· W4281940408 on OpenAlexaff
Suji Udayakumar, Sasha Thomson, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBiomarkerInternal medicineClinical trialClinical endpointPopulationSurrogate endpointPhases of clinical researchOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3152 Background: Efficacy endpoints of randomized controlled trials (RCT) are commonly used as the basis of regulatory drug approvals. Recently, promising results in early phase trials have resulted in approval of biomarker-targeted therapies. We examined if early phase trial results were associated with efficacy in subsequent biomarker-enriched RCTs. Methods: All cancer drug RCTs conducted between January 2006 and March 2021 were identified through Clinicaltrials.gov. Trials were eligible if a biomarker was used to select a patient population for treatment with a targeted agent. Associated early phase trials were included if they matched the RCT in treatment setting and patient population. Trials pairs were compared using objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). We assessed difference in endpoints using summary measures (e.g., average, range). We examined whether early phase trials results were associated with RCT results using logistic regression. Results: The search yielded 2,157 unique phase III RCTs and 27 RCTs met eligibility criteria pairing with associated early phase trials, where 17 RCTs met their primary endpoint. The most common biomarkers were EGFR+ (n = 8), HER2+ (n = 5) and PD-L1 (n = 5). Based on average difference of trial pairs, ORR was similar between trials (1.59%, 95% CI = -2.5-5.6, p = 0.50) and median PFS was slightly higher in early phase trials (1.95 months, 95% CI = 0.91-2.99, p < 0.05). On an individual pair basis, there was large range of variability in the difference between early phase trials and RCTs for ORR (range = -23.9-20.2%) and median PFS (range = -0.8-7.4 months). The probability of the RCT meeting its primary endpoint is 50% or 95%, when the early phase trial ORR is 41.2% (95% CI = 35.2-47.1%) or 77.7% (95% CI = 71.7-83.6%), respectively. Conclusions: Through comparison of early phase trials and subsequent phase III RCT, we found that, overall, ORR has minimal bias in early phase trials, and median PFS appears to be slightly overestimated. Substantial variability in results for trial pairs suggests that, on an individual basis, results in early phase trial can be inconsistent with results in subsequent RCT. Early phase trial results may be associated with RCTs meeting their primary endpoint when ORR is very high; however, caution must be exercised when using early phase trials as representative of RCTs for decision-making as the predictive ability of early phase trials is limited.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.608
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.804
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6080.804
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.020
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.837
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→