Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020

29Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Suboptimal treatment upon progression may affect overall survival (OS) results in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess the proportion of trials reporting post-progression treatment. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included two concurrent analyses. The first one examined all published RCTs of anti-cancer drugs in six high impact medical/oncology journals between January 2018 and December 2020. The second studied all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved anti-cancer drugs during the same period. Included trials needed to study an anti-cancer drug in the advanced or metastatic setting. Data abstracted included the tumor type, characteristics of trials, and reporting and assessment of post-progression treatment. Results: There were 275 published trials and 77 US FDA registration trials meeting inclusion criteria. Assessable post-progression data were reported in 100/275 publications (36.4%) and 37/77 approvals (48.1%). Treatment was considered substandard in 55 publications (n = 55/100, 55.0%) and 28 approvals (n = 28/37, 75.7%). Among trials with assessable post-progression data and positive OS results, a subgroup analysis identified substandard post-progression treatment in 29 publications (n = 29/42, 69.0%) and 20 approvals (n = 20/26, 76.9%). Overall, 16.4% of publications (45/275) and 11.7% of registration trials (9/77) had available post-progression data assessed as appropriate. Conclusion: We found that most anti-cancer RCTs do not report assessable post-progression treatment. When reported, post-progression treatment was substandard in most trials. In trials reporting positive OS results and with assessable post-progression data, the proportion of trials with subpar post-progression treatment was even higher. Discrepancies between post-progression therapy in trials and the standard of care can limit RCT results’ applicability. Regulatory rules should enforce higher requirements regarding post-progression treatment access and reporting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Olivier, T., Haslam, A., & Prasad, V. (2023). Post-progression treatment in cancer randomized trials: a cross-sectional study of trials leading to FDA approval and published trials between 2018 and 2020. BMC Cancer, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10917-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free