最大化治疗机会:评估协议豁免对药物再发现协议的安全性和结果的影响。

IF 10 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Jade M van Berge Henegouwen, Laurien J Zeverijn, Birgit S Geurts, Louisa R Hoes, Hanneke van der Wijngaart, Vincent van der Noort, Alwin D R Huitema, Filip Y F de Vos, Katrien Grünberg, Haiko J Bloemendal, Henk M W Verheul, Emile E Voest, Hans Gelderblom
{"title":"最大化治疗机会:评估协议豁免对药物再发现协议的安全性和结果的影响。","authors":"Jade M van Berge Henegouwen, Laurien J Zeverijn, Birgit S Geurts, Louisa R Hoes, Hanneke van der Wijngaart, Vincent van der Noort, Alwin D R Huitema, Filip Y F de Vos, Katrien Grünberg, Haiko J Bloemendal, Henk M W Verheul, Emile E Voest, Hans Gelderblom","doi":"10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although eligibility criteria are essential in trial design, overly restrictive criteria contribute to low accrual and limited generalizability. To enhance trial inclusivity, there has been growing interest in broadening eligibility criteria, especially for patients with advanced or treatment-refractory disease. Yet, the impact on patient safety remains uncertain. In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), protocol exceptions are frequently requested and occasionally granted. Here we describe the impact of these waivers on treatment safety and efficacy.</p><p><strong>Experimental design: </strong>DRUP is a multicenter, nonrandomized clinical basket trial treating patients with therapy-refractory cancer with molecularly targeted and immunotherapies outside their registered indications (NCT02925234). Here, all granted waivers were revised, analyzed in terms of safety and efficacy outcome, and comparedwithoutcomes of includedpatientswho didnot receive awaiver.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2021, protocol waivers were granted for 82 patients (8%) of 1,019 included patients in DRUP. Most waivers (45%) were granted for general- or drug-related eligibility criteria; other categories were out-of-window testing, treatment, and testing exceptions. Serious adverse event rate was similar between patients who received a waiver (pW) and patients who did not (pNW): 39% vs. 41%, respectively (P = 0.81). The clinical benefit (either objective response or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks) rate of pW was 40% versus 33% in pNW (P = 0.43).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted. These data support a more personalized approach in assessing eligibility criteria, especially in trials with widely used and approved drugs accruing patients without other treatment options. See related commentary by Waqar and Govindan, p. 3655.</p>","PeriodicalId":10279,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cancer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maximizing Treatment Opportunities: Assessing Protocol Waivers' Impact on Safety and Outcome in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.\",\"authors\":\"Jade M van Berge Henegouwen, Laurien J Zeverijn, Birgit S Geurts, Louisa R Hoes, Hanneke van der Wijngaart, Vincent van der Noort, Alwin D R Huitema, Filip Y F de Vos, Katrien Grünberg, Haiko J Bloemendal, Henk M W Verheul, Emile E Voest, Hans Gelderblom\",\"doi\":\"10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although eligibility criteria are essential in trial design, overly restrictive criteria contribute to low accrual and limited generalizability. To enhance trial inclusivity, there has been growing interest in broadening eligibility criteria, especially for patients with advanced or treatment-refractory disease. Yet, the impact on patient safety remains uncertain. In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), protocol exceptions are frequently requested and occasionally granted. Here we describe the impact of these waivers on treatment safety and efficacy.</p><p><strong>Experimental design: </strong>DRUP is a multicenter, nonrandomized clinical basket trial treating patients with therapy-refractory cancer with molecularly targeted and immunotherapies outside their registered indications (NCT02925234). Here, all granted waivers were revised, analyzed in terms of safety and efficacy outcome, and comparedwithoutcomes of includedpatientswho didnot receive awaiver.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2021, protocol waivers were granted for 82 patients (8%) of 1,019 included patients in DRUP. Most waivers (45%) were granted for general- or drug-related eligibility criteria; other categories were out-of-window testing, treatment, and testing exceptions. Serious adverse event rate was similar between patients who received a waiver (pW) and patients who did not (pNW): 39% vs. 41%, respectively (P = 0.81). The clinical benefit (either objective response or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks) rate of pW was 40% versus 33% in pNW (P = 0.43).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted. These data support a more personalized approach in assessing eligibility criteria, especially in trials with widely used and approved drugs accruing patients without other treatment options. See related commentary by Waqar and Govindan, p. 3655.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Cancer Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Cancer Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3917\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3917","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:尽管资格标准在试验设计中至关重要,但限制性过强的标准会导致应计率低和推广性受限。为了提高试验的包容性,人们越来越关注扩大资格标准,尤其是针对晚期或难治性疾病患者的资格标准。然而,这对患者安全的影响仍不确定。在 "药物再发现方案"(DRUP)中,经常会有人提出方案例外申请,偶尔也会获得批准。在此,我们将介绍这些豁免对治疗安全性和疗效的影响:DRUP 是一项多中心、非随机临床篮子试验,用分子靶向药物和免疫疗法治疗注册适应症(NCT02925234)以外的难治性癌症患者。在此,对所有获得豁免的患者进行了修订,分析了安全性和疗效结果,并与未获得豁免的纳入患者的结果进行了比较:结果:2016 年 9 月 1 日至 2021 年 9 月 1 日期间,在 DRUP 的 1019 名纳入患者中,有 82 名患者(8%)获得了方案豁免。大多数豁免(45%)是针对一般或与药物相关的资格标准,其他类别包括窗外测试、治疗和测试例外。获得豁免的患者(pW)和未获豁免的患者(pNW)的严重不良事件发生率相似:分别为 39% 对 41%(P=0.81)。pW患者的临床获益率(客观反应或病情稳定≥16周)为40%,而pNW患者为33%(P=0.43):结论:获得豁免的患者仍能保持安全性和临床获益。这些数据支持在评估资格标准时采用更加个性化的方法,尤其是在使用广泛使用且已获批准药物的试验中,如果患者没有其他治疗选择,则更应如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Maximizing Treatment Opportunities: Assessing Protocol Waivers' Impact on Safety and Outcome in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

Purpose: Although eligibility criteria are essential in trial design, overly restrictive criteria contribute to low accrual and limited generalizability. To enhance trial inclusivity, there has been growing interest in broadening eligibility criteria, especially for patients with advanced or treatment-refractory disease. Yet, the impact on patient safety remains uncertain. In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), protocol exceptions are frequently requested and occasionally granted. Here we describe the impact of these waivers on treatment safety and efficacy.

Experimental design: DRUP is a multicenter, nonrandomized clinical basket trial treating patients with therapy-refractory cancer with molecularly targeted and immunotherapies outside their registered indications (NCT02925234). Here, all granted waivers were revised, analyzed in terms of safety and efficacy outcome, and comparedwithoutcomes of includedpatientswho didnot receive awaiver.

Results: Between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2021, protocol waivers were granted for 82 patients (8%) of 1,019 included patients in DRUP. Most waivers (45%) were granted for general- or drug-related eligibility criteria; other categories were out-of-window testing, treatment, and testing exceptions. Serious adverse event rate was similar between patients who received a waiver (pW) and patients who did not (pNW): 39% vs. 41%, respectively (P = 0.81). The clinical benefit (either objective response or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks) rate of pW was 40% versus 33% in pNW (P = 0.43).

Conclusions: Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted. These data support a more personalized approach in assessing eligibility criteria, especially in trials with widely used and approved drugs accruing patients without other treatment options. See related commentary by Waqar and Govindan, p. 3655.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
20.10
自引率
1.70%
发文量
1207
审稿时长
2.1 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Cancer Research is a journal focusing on groundbreaking research in cancer, specifically in the areas where the laboratory and the clinic intersect. Our primary interest lies in clinical trials that investigate novel treatments, accompanied by research on pharmacology, molecular alterations, and biomarkers that can predict response or resistance to these treatments. Furthermore, we prioritize laboratory and animal studies that explore new drugs and targeted agents with the potential to advance to clinical trials. We also encourage research on targetable mechanisms of cancer development, progression, and metastasis.
×
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