Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Methodologic rigor of clinical trials on surgical management of eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.

RESULTS:

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

Allocating Participants to Groups In Educational Trials: What Does Random Mean?

What is meant by the term random? Do we understand how to identify which type of randomisation to use in our future research projects? We, as researchers, often explain randomisation to potential research participants as being a 50/50 chance of selection to either an intervention or control group, akin to drawing numbers out of a hat. Is this an accurate explanation? And are all methods of randomisation equal? This paper aims to guide the researcher through the different techniques used to randomise participants with examples of how they can be used in educational research.

The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Key Priorities, Purposes and Aims and the Implications for Public Health

The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.

Biomarker responses to folic acid intervention in healthy adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The task of revising dietary folate recommendations for optimal health is complicated by a lack of data quantifying the biomarker response that reliably reflects a given folate intake.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis in healthy adults to quantify the typical response of recognized folate biomarkers to a change in folic acid intake.

DESIGN: Electronic and bibliographic searches identified 19 randomized controlled trials that supplemented with folic acid and measured folate biomarkers before and after the intervention in apparently healthy adults aged ≥18 y. For each biomarker response, the regression coefficient (β) for individual studies and the overall pooled β were calculated by using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Folate biomarkers (serum/plasma and red blood cell folate) increased in response to folic acid in a dose-response manner only up to an intake of 400 μg/d. Calculation of the overall pooled β for studies in the range of 50 to 400 μg/d indicated that a doubling of folic acid intake resulted in an increase in serum/plasma folate by 63% (71% for microbiological assay; 61% for nonmicrobiological assay) and red blood cell folate by 31% (irrespective of whether microbiological or other assay was used). Studies that used the microbiological assay indicated lower heterogeneity compared with studies using nonmicrobiological assays for determining serum/plasma (I(2) = 13.5% compared with I(2) = 77.2%) and red blood cell (I(2) = 45.9% compared with I(2) = 70.2%) folate.

CONCLUSIONS: Studies administering >400 μg folic acid/d show no dose-response relation and thus will not yield meaningful results for consideration when generating dietary folate recommendations. The calculated folate biomarker response to a given folic acid intake may be more robust with the use of a microbiological assay rather than alternative methods for blood folate measurement.

Exploring the Findings from Three Randomised Controlled Trials of Bookgifting Programmes

Aims: This paper explores the effects from three similar bookgifting programmes on improving reading outcomes of early years’ children, their parents and teachers.
Methods: The paper draws on research data produced by the Centre for Effective Education during three randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluations of bookgifting programmes (N=1694 participant families in total). The three studies used pre and post test measures to identify effects across a total of 15 social, cognitive and behavioural reading outcomes.
Results: The overall average effect across the 15 outcomes from data provided by 1694 participant families, was d=0.07. This is a relatively small overall effect and there was an overall pattern of small positive effects of this scale across the wide range of the reading outcomes assessed. However, only one significant effect was identified in the 15 outcomes assessed across all three studies.
Conclusions: The review of these three studies suggests that the RCTs struggle to identify significant effects in these low exposure and low cost bookgifting interventions. Furthermore, it is recommended that future RCT studies of this type of programme require very large sample sizes in the scale of 1000’s rather than 100’s to generate enough study power. Or alternatively, these programmes could be evaluated as a component part of more intensive reading interventions.

Complex Interplay Between Determinants of Pacing and Performance During 20 km Cycle Time Trials

Purpose This study examined the determinants of pacing strategy and performance during self paced maximal exercise. Methods Eight well trained cyclists completed two 20 km time trials. Power output, RPE, positive and negative affect, and iEMG activity of the active musculature were recorded every 0.5km, confidence in achieving pre-exercise goals was assessed every 5 km, and blood lactate and pH were measured post-exercise. Differences in all parameters were assessed between fastest (FAST) and slowest (SLOW) trials performed. Results Mean power output was significantly higher during the initial 90% of FAST, but not the final 10%, and blood lactate concentration was significantly higher and pH significantly lower following FAST. Mean iEMG activity was significantly higher throughout SLOW. RPE was similar throughout both trials, but participants had significantly more positive affect and less negative affect throughout FAST. Participants grew less confident in their ability to achieve their goals throughout SLOW. Conclusions The results suggest that affect may be the primary psychological regulator of pacing strategy and that higher levels of positivity and lower levels of negativity may have been associated with a more aggressive strategy during FAST. Although the exact mechanisms through which affect acts to influence performance are unclear, it may determine the degree of physiological disruption that can be tolerated, or be reflective of peripheral physiological status in relation to the still to be completed exercise task.

Superior outcome of women with stage I/II cutaneous melanoma: pooled analysis of four European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trials.

PURPOSE: Several studies observed a female advantage in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma, for which behavioral factors or an underlying biologic mechanism might be responsible. Using complete and reliable follow-up data from four phase III trials of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group, we explored the female advantage across multiple end points and in relation to other important prognostic indicators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized melanoma were included in EORTC adjuvant treatment trials 18832, 18871, 18952, and 18961 and randomly assigned during the period of 1984 to 2005. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for women compared with men, adjusted for age, Breslow thickness, body site, ulceration, performed lymph node dissection, and treatment. RESULTS: A total of 2,672 patients with stage I/II melanoma were included. Women had a highly consistent and independent advantage in overall survival (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83), disease-specific survival (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.88), time to lymph node metastasis (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.96), and time to distant metastasis (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.81). Subgroup analysis showed that the female advantage was consistent across all prognostic subgroups (with the possible exception of head and neck melanomas) and in pre- and postmenopausal age groups. CONCLUSION: Women have a consistent and independent relative advantage in all aspects of the progression of localized melanoma of approximately 30%, most likely caused by an underlying biologic sex difference.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Defining responses to therapy and study outcomes in clinical trials of invasive fungal diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus criteria.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS: Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.