Abstract 5192
Background
Few studies have assessed the differences in outcomes between phase II versus III landmark studies in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. The primary aim of this study was to determine differences in overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) between phase III studies and their preceeding phase II studies and to assess for differences in reported grade 3 and 4 toxicities.
Methods
A PubMed search was performed and reports of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating systemic therapies in GI malignancies, published between 2008 and 2018 in JAMA, NEJM, JCO, Ann Oncol, Lancet, and Lancet Oncol were included. Preceeding phase II studies were identified by searching in PubMed and Medline using author and group names from the phase III studies. Phase II studies could be published in any journal. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, ORR, and incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were collected and compared between available phase III and phase II pairs via meta-analysis.
Results
Out of 788 phase III studies identified, 91 met our inclusion criteria. Corresponding phase II studies were found in 43 cases (47%). The most studied tumour sites were colorectal, gastric and pancreas cancer. Fifty-five (60.4%) phase III studies were entirely funded by industry and 44 (80%) focused on metastatic disease. In the localized disease setting, only 5 (21.7%) studies were preceeded by a phase II trial, while in the metastatic setting this occurred in 38 (55.9%) studies. Comparisons between phase III and their phase II trials, showed no difference in ORR (p = 0.191) and a hazard ratio increase in phase III OS (p = 0.028). Additionally, we observed no difference in AEs (p = 0.203), where only 52 (57%) of the phase III studies clearly stated the overall incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities.
Conclusions
Lack of preceeding phase II studies in 48 (52.7%) phase III studies published in high impact journals suggests there may be insufficient background data for the performance of pivotal trials. The reported ORRs and grade 3/4 toxicities were similar between phase III and II studies, however, phase III studies show an increment in HRs for OS of 19.7% (2.0-40.5 95%CI) compared to phase II studies.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2162 - Clinical Benefit and Prices of Cancer Drugs in the US and Europe
Presenter: Kerstin Vokinger
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
4743 - Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada
Presenter: Joanna Gotfrit
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
6081 - Biosimilar Substitution: European Prescriber Perspectives
Presenter: Michael Reilly
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
1218 - Cost avoided in drugs derived from participation in clinical trials in colorectal cancer
Presenter: Luis Sánchez- Rubio Ferrández
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
3453 - Accessibility and Affordability to Trastuzumab for Breast cancer patients: voices of the Global Oncology community from ONCOLLEGE 001 survey – part 2
Presenter: Sara Altuna
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
3302 - Poster Discussion - Public policy - Analysis of 105.000 cancer patients; have they been discussed in oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings? A nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands
Presenter: Janneke Walraven
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
5246 - Reaching sustainable oncology care via the National Cancer Control Program (NCCP)
Presenter: Branko Zakotnik
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
5586 - Changing landscape of clinical cancer trials in Germany
Presenter: Susen Burock
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
5811 - Projecting overall survival data for health-economic models in oncology: do maturity levels impact uncertainty?
Presenter: Isabelle Borget
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract
1801 - Implementation Frameworks to effectively transition complex research interventions into clinical practice in Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology; A scoping Systematic Review
Presenter: Gayathri Delanerolle
Session: Poster Discussion - Public policy
Resources:
Abstract