ArticleTargeted oncology2022
Do Early Phase Oncology Trials Predict Clinical Efficacy in Subsequent Biomarker-Enriched Phase III Randomized Trials?
Article in Targeted oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPromising early phase trial results of biomarker-targeted therapies have occasionally led to regulatory approval.
objectiveWe examined if early phase trials were predictive of efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with matching treatment settings. PATIENTS AND
methodsCancer drug RCTs conducted between January 2006 and March 2021 were identified through Clinicaltrials.gov. Biomarker-enriched RCTs and associated matching early phase trials were included. Trial pairs were compared using objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). We examined whether early phase trials results were associated with RCT results using logistic regression.
resultsThe search yielded 2157 unique RCTs and 27 RCTs pairing with early phase trials were included. Based on average difference of trial pairs, ORR was similar (1.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.5 to 5.6, p = 0.50) and median PFS was higher in early phase trials (2.0 months; 95% CI 0.9-3.0, p < 0.05). On an individual pair basis, there was large variability in difference for ORR (range - 23.9 to 20.2%) and median PFS (range - 0.8 to 7.4 months). The probability of the RCT meeting its primary endpoint is 95% (95% prediction interval (PI) 72.8-99.3%) when the early phase trial ORR is 77.7%.
conclusionsOverall, in early phase trials, ORR has minimal bias and median PFS appears to be slightly overestimated. Substantial variability between trials suggests early phase trial results may be inconsistent with 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36197635What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.