Angela Meade , Elena Frangou , Babak Choodari-Oskooei , James Larkin , Tom Powles , Grant D. Stewart , Laurence Albiges , Axel Bex , Toni K. Choueiri , Ian D. Davis , Tim Eisen , Alison Fielding , Craig Gedye , David J. Harrison , Rick Kaplan , Salena Mulhere , Paul Nathan , Grisma Patel , Jay Patel , Hannah Plant , Mahesh K.B. Parmar
{"title":"Adapting the design of the ongoing RAMPART trial in response to external evidence: An example for trials which take many years to run and report","authors":"Angela Meade , Elena Frangou , Babak Choodari-Oskooei , James Larkin , Tom Powles , Grant D. Stewart , Laurence Albiges , Axel Bex , Toni K. Choueiri , Ian D. Davis , Tim Eisen , Alison Fielding , Craig Gedye , David J. Harrison , Rick Kaplan , Salena Mulhere , Paul Nathan , Grisma Patel , Jay Patel , Hannah Plant , Mahesh K.B. Parmar","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Clinical trials to establish the efficacy of new agents in the adjuvant cancer setting typically take many years to complete. During that time, external factors can impact recruitment and reporting plans. An example is a new standard of care becoming available during the recruitment period.</div><div>In this paper we describe how we modified the design of the RAMPART trial (<span><span>NCT03288532</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>) which was set up to investigate immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant renal cancer setting. The trial had been initiated when no globally accepted adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy existed. A subsequent change in the standard of care for many patients with early renal cancer meant it was no longer feasible to continue to recruit. We needed to find a way to maximise the contribution that RAMPART participants could make to the evidence base for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy without introducing bias or detriment to the integrity of the trial results. We describe how we agreed and incorporated all design and timeline changes while remaining blinded to accumulating data within the trial, thus protecting the reliability of the future results. We share details of our design modifications to guide others who may have similar experiences, particularly as more agents and combinations of agents are developed and investigated in similar adjuvant settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 101381"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424001285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Clinical trials to establish the efficacy of new agents in the adjuvant cancer setting typically take many years to complete. During that time, external factors can impact recruitment and reporting plans. An example is a new standard of care becoming available during the recruitment period.
In this paper we describe how we modified the design of the RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) which was set up to investigate immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant renal cancer setting. The trial had been initiated when no globally accepted adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy existed. A subsequent change in the standard of care for many patients with early renal cancer meant it was no longer feasible to continue to recruit. We needed to find a way to maximise the contribution that RAMPART participants could make to the evidence base for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy without introducing bias or detriment to the integrity of the trial results. We describe how we agreed and incorporated all design and timeline changes while remaining blinded to accumulating data within the trial, thus protecting the reliability of the future results. We share details of our design modifications to guide others who may have similar experiences, particularly as more agents and combinations of agents are developed and investigated in similar adjuvant settings.
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.