在晚期癌症的免疫治疗试验中进行审查。一个系统回顾和一个元研究

Filippo Vitale, Fabio Salomone, Massimo Di Maio, Simeone D’Ambrosio, Annarita Avanzo, Fabiana Napolitano, Angela Viggiano, Luigi Liguori, Anna Russo, Maria Carmela Isernia, Lucia Longo, Antonio Santaniello, Luigi Formisano, Roberto Bianco, Alberto Servetto
{"title":"在晚期癌症的免疫治疗试验中进行审查。一个系统回顾和一个元研究","authors":"Filippo Vitale, Fabio Salomone, Massimo Di Maio, Simeone D’Ambrosio, Annarita Avanzo, Fabiana Napolitano, Angela Viggiano, Luigi Liguori, Anna Russo, Maria Carmela Isernia, Lucia Longo, Antonio Santaniello, Luigi Formisano, Roberto Bianco, Alberto Servetto","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Informative censoring affects interpretation of trials results. We investigated censoring rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods We searched articles of RCTs testing ICIs in advanced cancers, published up to 12/2023. For both progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves, we collected the rates of censored patients at the first (T1), median PFS/OS (TmPFS/OS) and last (T2) study intervals. We calculated the unweighted difference in censoring rates (ΔC-E) and the weighted difference adjusted for enrolment size (wΔC-E), in control (C) versus experimental (E) arm at T1. Tm and T2. Results Of the selected 140 trials, censoring data at T1, Tm and T2 were available for 53/140 (37.8%) and 55/140 (39.2%) trials for PFS and OS K-M curves, respectively. Rates of censoring in C and E were: at T1, 8.19% and 4.92%, for PFS; TmPFS, 15.5% and 12.5%; T1, 2.33% and 1.16%, for OS; TmOS, 20.1% and 21.3%; T2, 23.29% and 26.34%, for PFS; T2, 33.3% and 39.49%, for OS. Analysis of wΔC-E revealed more censoring in C at T1 (PFS: 1.32; OS: 0.40) and in E at T2 (PFS: -2.61; OS: -5.23). Finally, at T1, we found larger rates of censoring in C of open-label compared to double-blinded RCTs. Conclusions Multiple RCTs of ICIs did not report censoring data. The rate of censoring is higher in C at the start and increases in E over the course of the trial. Further studies might elucidate the role of censoring on survival outcomes.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Censoring in trials testing immunotherapy in advanced cancers. A systematic review and a meta-research study\",\"authors\":\"Filippo Vitale, Fabio Salomone, Massimo Di Maio, Simeone D’Ambrosio, Annarita Avanzo, Fabiana Napolitano, Angela Viggiano, Luigi Liguori, Anna Russo, Maria Carmela Isernia, Lucia Longo, Antonio Santaniello, Luigi Formisano, Roberto Bianco, Alberto Servetto\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djaf237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Informative censoring affects interpretation of trials results. We investigated censoring rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods We searched articles of RCTs testing ICIs in advanced cancers, published up to 12/2023. For both progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves, we collected the rates of censored patients at the first (T1), median PFS/OS (TmPFS/OS) and last (T2) study intervals. We calculated the unweighted difference in censoring rates (ΔC-E) and the weighted difference adjusted for enrolment size (wΔC-E), in control (C) versus experimental (E) arm at T1. Tm and T2. Results Of the selected 140 trials, censoring data at T1, Tm and T2 were available for 53/140 (37.8%) and 55/140 (39.2%) trials for PFS and OS K-M curves, respectively. Rates of censoring in C and E were: at T1, 8.19% and 4.92%, for PFS; TmPFS, 15.5% and 12.5%; T1, 2.33% and 1.16%, for OS; TmOS, 20.1% and 21.3%; T2, 23.29% and 26.34%, for PFS; T2, 33.3% and 39.49%, for OS. Analysis of wΔC-E revealed more censoring in C at T1 (PFS: 1.32; OS: 0.40) and in E at T2 (PFS: -2.61; OS: -5.23). Finally, at T1, we found larger rates of censoring in C of open-label compared to double-blinded RCTs. Conclusions Multiple RCTs of ICIs did not report censoring data. The rate of censoring is higher in C at the start and increases in E over the course of the trial. Further studies might elucidate the role of censoring on survival outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf237\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

信息审查影响对试验结果的解释。我们调查了免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)的随机对照试验(rct)的审查率。方法检索截至2023年12月发表的晚期癌症中检测ICIs的随机对照试验文章。对于无进展(PFS)和总生存(OS) Kaplan-Meier (K-M)曲线,我们收集了第一次(T1)、中位PFS/OS (TmPFS/OS)和最后一次(T2)研究间隔的剔除患者率。我们计算了T1时对照组(C组)与实验组(E组)审查率的未加权差异(ΔC-E)和按入组人数调整的加权差异(wΔC-E)。Tm和T2。结果在所选的140项试验中,PFS和OS K-M曲线在T1、Tm和T2的数据分别为53/140(37.8%)和55/140(39.2%)。PFS T1时C和E的检出率分别为8.19%和4.92%;TmPFS分别为15.5%和12.5%;T1为2.33%,OS为1.16%;TmOS分别为20.1%和21.3%;PFS组T2分别为23.29%和26.34%;T2、33.3%和39.49%为OS。wΔC-E分析显示T1时C (PFS: 1.32; OS: 0.40)和T2时E (PFS: -2.61; OS: -5.23)有更多的剪切。最后,在T1时,我们发现与双盲随机对照试验相比,开放标签试验中C的审查率更高。结论:多个ICIs随机对照试验未报告审查数据。在试验开始时,C的审查率较高,在试验过程中,E的审查率增加。进一步的研究可能会阐明审查对生存结果的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Censoring in trials testing immunotherapy in advanced cancers. A systematic review and a meta-research study
Background Informative censoring affects interpretation of trials results. We investigated censoring rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods We searched articles of RCTs testing ICIs in advanced cancers, published up to 12/2023. For both progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves, we collected the rates of censored patients at the first (T1), median PFS/OS (TmPFS/OS) and last (T2) study intervals. We calculated the unweighted difference in censoring rates (ΔC-E) and the weighted difference adjusted for enrolment size (wΔC-E), in control (C) versus experimental (E) arm at T1. Tm and T2. Results Of the selected 140 trials, censoring data at T1, Tm and T2 were available for 53/140 (37.8%) and 55/140 (39.2%) trials for PFS and OS K-M curves, respectively. Rates of censoring in C and E were: at T1, 8.19% and 4.92%, for PFS; TmPFS, 15.5% and 12.5%; T1, 2.33% and 1.16%, for OS; TmOS, 20.1% and 21.3%; T2, 23.29% and 26.34%, for PFS; T2, 33.3% and 39.49%, for OS. Analysis of wΔC-E revealed more censoring in C at T1 (PFS: 1.32; OS: 0.40) and in E at T2 (PFS: -2.61; OS: -5.23). Finally, at T1, we found larger rates of censoring in C of open-label compared to double-blinded RCTs. Conclusions Multiple RCTs of ICIs did not report censoring data. The rate of censoring is higher in C at the start and increases in E over the course of the trial. Further studies might elucidate the role of censoring on survival outcomes.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信