1429 Application of ICTIS to currently recruiting clinical trials: a novel scoring system to assess the inclusivity of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer immunotherapy trials

Kira Nguyen, Ashley Wei, Wint Yan Aung, Nicole Spinelli, Nagashree Seetharamu
{"title":"1429 Application of ICTIS to currently recruiting clinical trials: a novel scoring system to assess the inclusivity of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer immunotherapy trials","authors":"Kira Nguyen, Ashley Wei, Wint Yan Aung, Nicole Spinelli, Nagashree Seetharamu","doi":"10.1136/jitc-2023-sitc2023.1429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3> Many immunotherapy trials contain overly restrictive or irrelevant exclusionary criteria, limiting accessibility to patients and contributing to disparities in enrollment and outcomes. We developed a novel scoring system, the Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Inclusivity Scale (ICITS), to measure the inclusivity of immunotherapy clinical trials and provide recommendations for broadening eligibility criteria for future immunotherapy trials. Using ICTIS, we measured the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria across advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) immunotherapy clinical trials. <h3>Methods</h3> National guidelines and novel author recommendations informed ICTIS’s development, a 22-point-summative scale using a binary system awarding 1 point for the usage of each inclusive criterion. Recruiting and not-yet-recruiting NSCLC interventional U.S. trials were accessed using ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were filtered through to identify and record eligibility criteria information on only metastatic immunotherapy NSCLC trials. Then, these trials were scored with ICTIS and compared in subgroups: year, combination treatment type, phase of trial, and line of treatment. Mean ICTIS scores were compared with ANOVA and t-tests, and individual points were compared with chi-squared tests. <h3>Results</h3> 142 out of 343 trials from ClinicalTrials.gov were metastatic and immunotherapy and scored. The majority of trials still used exclusive criteria for performance status, pneumonitis, washout period, and various organ function criteria. Through subgroup analyses, phase ½ trials were found to have significantly more exclusive psychiatric and cardiac criteria (χ2=7.3; p<0.05). Use of platelet count target was used in significantly more number of immunotherapy studies than in combination studies (χ2=5.1, p<0.01). Taking date of registration of clinical trial into consideration, we noted that leptomeningeal involvement became more inclusive over time (χ2=8.0; p<0.05). A significantly higher number of second-line trials had inclusive pneumonitis criteria (χ2=4.9; p<0.05). However, the majority of criteria were uniform different risk profiles (χ2; p>0.05). No significant differences were found between mean ICTIS scores across all subgroups (ANOVA and t-test; p>0.05). Also, a wide distribution of scores was found showing low homogeneity (figure 1). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our results indicate that despite the release of national guidelines for improving inclusivity, immunotherapy trials have made negligible efforts to broaden their rigid eligibility criteria. Moreover, the majority of trials, irrespective of combination or monotherapies, first-line or subsequent-line, and early or late phase have homogenous criteria across various eligibility parameters. Using ICTIS, metastatic NSCLC immunotherapy trials were able to be analyzed for their inclusivity and prevalent restrictive criteria were identified for refinement. Our analysis can help investigators design immunotherapy studies to improve patient access and the generalizability of results. <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> Thank you to my partner Ashley Wei for your hard work to complete this project together. Thank you also to Ms. Spinelli, Dr. Seetharamu, and Dr. Aung for their guidance and valuable input into this research project.","PeriodicalId":500964,"journal":{"name":"Regular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2023-sitc2023.1429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Many immunotherapy trials contain overly restrictive or irrelevant exclusionary criteria, limiting accessibility to patients and contributing to disparities in enrollment and outcomes. We developed a novel scoring system, the Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Inclusivity Scale (ICITS), to measure the inclusivity of immunotherapy clinical trials and provide recommendations for broadening eligibility criteria for future immunotherapy trials. Using ICTIS, we measured the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria across advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) immunotherapy clinical trials.

Methods

National guidelines and novel author recommendations informed ICTIS’s development, a 22-point-summative scale using a binary system awarding 1 point for the usage of each inclusive criterion. Recruiting and not-yet-recruiting NSCLC interventional U.S. trials were accessed using ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were filtered through to identify and record eligibility criteria information on only metastatic immunotherapy NSCLC trials. Then, these trials were scored with ICTIS and compared in subgroups: year, combination treatment type, phase of trial, and line of treatment. Mean ICTIS scores were compared with ANOVA and t-tests, and individual points were compared with chi-squared tests.

Results

142 out of 343 trials from ClinicalTrials.gov were metastatic and immunotherapy and scored. The majority of trials still used exclusive criteria for performance status, pneumonitis, washout period, and various organ function criteria. Through subgroup analyses, phase ½ trials were found to have significantly more exclusive psychiatric and cardiac criteria (χ2=7.3; p<0.05). Use of platelet count target was used in significantly more number of immunotherapy studies than in combination studies (χ2=5.1, p<0.01). Taking date of registration of clinical trial into consideration, we noted that leptomeningeal involvement became more inclusive over time (χ2=8.0; p<0.05). A significantly higher number of second-line trials had inclusive pneumonitis criteria (χ2=4.9; p<0.05). However, the majority of criteria were uniform different risk profiles (χ2; p>0.05). No significant differences were found between mean ICTIS scores across all subgroups (ANOVA and t-test; p>0.05). Also, a wide distribution of scores was found showing low homogeneity (figure 1).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that despite the release of national guidelines for improving inclusivity, immunotherapy trials have made negligible efforts to broaden their rigid eligibility criteria. Moreover, the majority of trials, irrespective of combination or monotherapies, first-line or subsequent-line, and early or late phase have homogenous criteria across various eligibility parameters. Using ICTIS, metastatic NSCLC immunotherapy trials were able to be analyzed for their inclusivity and prevalent restrictive criteria were identified for refinement. Our analysis can help investigators design immunotherapy studies to improve patient access and the generalizability of results.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my partner Ashley Wei for your hard work to complete this project together. Thank you also to Ms. Spinelli, Dr. Seetharamu, and Dr. Aung for their guidance and valuable input into this research project.
1429 ICTIS在临床试验中的应用:一种评估晚期非小细胞肺癌免疫治疗试验包容性的新型评分系统
许多免疫治疗试验包含过于严格或不相关的排除标准,限制了患者的可及性,并导致了入组和结果的差异。我们开发了一种新的评分系统,免疫治疗临床试验包容性量表(ICITS),以衡量免疫治疗临床试验的包容性,并为扩大未来免疫治疗试验的资格标准提供建议。使用ICTIS,我们测量了晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)免疫治疗临床试验的资格标准的限制性。方法国家指南和新颖的作者建议为ICTIS的发展提供了信息,采用22分的总结性量表,采用二进制系统,每个包括标准的使用均给予1分。招募和未招募NSCLC的美国介入试验可通过ClinicalTrials.gov访问。筛选试验以确定并记录仅转移性免疫治疗NSCLC试验的合格标准信息。然后,用ICTIS对这些试验进行评分,并按亚组进行比较:年份、联合治疗类型、试验阶段和治疗线。ICTIS平均得分比较采用方差分析和t检验,个体得分比较采用卡方检验。结果:ClinicalTrials.gov网站上的343个试验中有142个是转移性和免疫治疗的,并获得了评分。大多数试验仍然使用排他的标准来衡量表现状态、肺炎、洗脱期和各种器官功能标准。通过亚组分析,发现半期试验具有更独特的精神病学和心脏标准(χ2=7.3;术中,0.05)。使用血小板计数靶标的免疫治疗研究数量明显多于联合治疗研究(χ2=5.1, p<0.01)。考虑到临床试验的注册日期,我们注意到随着时间的推移,腰脑膜受累变得更具包容性(χ2=8.0;术中,0.05)。二线试验中具有包容性肺炎标准的数量显著增加(χ2=4.9;术中,0.05)。然而,大多数标准是统一的不同的风险概况(χ2;p> 0.05)。各亚组的ICTIS平均评分无显著差异(方差分析和t检验;p> 0.05)。此外,广泛分布的分数显示出低同质性(图1)。我们的结果表明,尽管发布了提高包容性的国家指南,但免疫治疗试验在扩大其严格的资格标准方面做出了微不足道的努力。此外,大多数试验,无论联合或单一治疗,一线或后续治疗,早期或晚期,在各种资格参数中都有相同的标准。使用ICTIS,转移性NSCLC免疫治疗试验能够分析其包容性,并确定了普遍的限制性标准以进行改进。我们的分析可以帮助研究人员设计免疫治疗研究,以提高患者的可及性和结果的普遍性。感谢我的合作伙伴Ashley Wei的辛勤工作,共同完成了这个项目。还要感谢Spinelli女士、Seetharamu博士和Aung博士为本研究项目提供的指导和宝贵意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信