scholarly journals Validation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials via principal stratification with an application to a prostate cancer trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (19) ◽  
pp. 2963-2977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiro Tanaka ◽  
Yutaka Matsuyama ◽  
Yasuo Ohashi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Principal Stratification ◽  
Cancer Trial

Racial disparities in access to prostate cancer clinical trials: A county-level analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6553-6553
Author(s):  
Aasthaa Bansal ◽  
Wei-Jhih Wang ◽  
Caroline Savage Bennette ◽  
Scott David Ramsey
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
County Level ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Trial ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
The Relationship

6553 Background: African American men (AAs) have a higher burden of prostate cancer compared to other populations. We sought to determine if they experience disparities in access to prostate cancer clinical trials. Methods: We created a county-level database of all U.S. counties by linking together prostate cancer clinical trial data from the Aggregate Analysis of ClincalTrials.gov (AACT) database with county-level socioeconomic, demographic and healthcare facility data derived from several external data sources. Using this data linkage, we examined two specific potential access barriers. First, we investigated the relationship between %AAs in the county and access to NCI designated cancer facilities, adjusting for county population size and other characteristics. Then, among counties with cancer facilities, we investigated the relationship between the %AAs in the county and number of available prostate cancer treatment trials per capita per year. We used logistic and negative binomial regression models, respectively, to address these questions. Results: Between 2008 and 2015, 613 prostate cancer trial sites were found among 3,145 U.S. counties. Counties with higher %AAs were less likely to have cancer facilities (adjusted odds ratio = 0.85, 95% CI (0.78, 0.92)). Among counties with cancer facilities, those with higher %AAs had significantly fewer prostate cancer trials per capita per year (rate ratio per 10% increase in %AAs: 0.90, 95% CI (0.83,0.96)), after adjusting for county-level sociodemographic and healthcare system factors. Conclusions: Counties with higher proportions of AAs appear to be less likely to have access to NCI designated cancer facilities. Among counties with cancer facilities, those with higher proportions of AAs appear to have fewer available prostate cancer treatment trials per capita per year. Clinical trials in prostate cancer therapy should ensure adequate availability of enrollment sites in regions with high concentrations of AAs.

Enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials leading to FDA approvals between 2008 and 2020.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18501-e18501
Author(s):  
Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen ◽  
Yomaira Silva ◽  
Vijayakrishna K. Gadi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevalence ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
The Us ◽  
Enrollment Data

e18501 Background: Cancer clinical trials based in the United States (US) have lacked adequate representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women. Pivotal clinical trials leading to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are often multi-national trials and may also lack generalizability to underrepresented populations in the United States. We determined the racial, ethnic, age, and sex enrollment in pivotal trials relative to the US cancer population. Methods: We reviewed the FDA’s Drug Approvals and Databases for novel and new use drug approvals for breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer indications from 2008 through 2020. Drugs@FDA was searched for drug approval summaries and FDA labels to identify clinical trials used to justify clinical efficacy that led to FDA approval. For eligible trials, enrollment data were obtained from FDA approval summaries, FDA labels, ClinicalTrials.gov, and corresponding journal manuscripts. Enrollment Fraction (EF) was calculated as enrollment in identified clinical trials divided by 2017 SEER cancer prevalence. All data sources were publicly available. Results: From 2008 through 2020, 60 drugs received novel or new use drug approval for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer indications based on 66 clinical trials with a total enrollment of 36,830. North America accounted for 9,259 (31%) enrollees of the 73% of trials reporting location of enrollment. Racial demographics were reported in 78% of manuscripts, 66% of ClinicalTrials.gov pages, and 98% of FDA labels or approval summaries. Compared with a 0.4% enrollment fraction among White patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (0.2%, odds ratio [OR] vs White, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.49, P< 0.001) and Black (0.1%, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.31, P< 0.001) patients. Elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) were less likely than younger patients to be enrollees (EF 0.3% vs 0.9%, OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.27, P< 0.001) despite accounting for 61.3% of cancer prevalence. For colorectal and lung cancer trials, females were less likely than males (EF 0.7% vs 1.1%, OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.68, P< 0.001) to be enrolled. Conclusions: Black, Hispanic, elderly, and female patients were less likely to enroll in cancer clinical trials leading to FDA approvals from 2008 to 2020. Race and geographic enrollment data were inconsistently reported in journal manuscripts and ClinicalTrials.gov. The lack of appropriate representation of specific patient populations in these key clinical trials limits their generalizability. Future efforts must be made to ensure equitable access, representation, and reporting of enrollees that adequately represent the US population of patients with cancer.

Beyond the Development of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) Measures: A Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials—Does HRQOL Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Research Inform Clinical Decision Making?

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 3502-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Carolyn Gotay ◽  
Henning Flechtner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. Results: Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions. Conclusion: A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Racial disparities and online health information: YouTube and prostate cancer clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 126 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hala T. Borno ◽  
Sylvia Zhang ◽  
Brian Bakke ◽  
Alexander Bell ◽  
Kyle B. Zuniga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials

Measuring the unmeasurable: automated bone scan index as a quantitative endpoint in prostate cancer clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Mauricio Mota ◽  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
Steven M. Larson ◽  
Josef J. Fox ◽  
Michael J. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bone Scan ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Bone Scan Index

Ixabepilone, mitoxantrone, and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer refractory to docetaxel-based therapy: A phase II study of the DOD Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5058-5058
Author(s):  
E. Small ◽  
A. Harzstark ◽  
V. K. Weinberg ◽  
D. C. Smith ◽  
P. Mathew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Vasovagal Syncope ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Grade 3

5058 Background: Mitoxantrone (M) plus prednisone (P) and ixabepilone (Ix) each have modest, non cross-resistant activity as second line chemotherapy regimens in docetaxel-refractory patients with CRPC. These agents were therefore combined in a phase I study which demonstrated anti-cancer activity and defined the recommended phase II dose used in this trial. Methods: Patients with metastatic CRPC and progression after 3 or more cycles of docetaxel were enrolled in a phase II multicenter study of the combination of prednisone 5 mg BID, Ix (35 mg/m2) and M (12 mg/m2) administered intravenously on day 1 every 21 days, with pegfilgrastim (6 mg on day 2) support. Results: To date, 43 pts have been enrolled and have received a median of 4 cycles. Of 37 patients currently evaluable for response, 14 (38%; 95% CI: 22–55%) have had a confirmed ≥50% decline in PSA and 19 (51%; 95% CI 34–68%) have had a confirmed ≥30% decline in PSA. Two of 15 patients with evaluable measurable disease (13%) have had a RECIST-defined objective response. All 43 patients are evaluable for toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was seen in 6 pts (17%) and grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was seen in 3 (8%). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 events possibly related to study drug have included grade 3 fatigue (3 pts), grade 3 pneumonia (2 pts), and grade 3 atrial fibrillation, grade 4 myocardial infarction, grade 4 prostatitis, grade 3 nausea/vomiting, grade 3 neuropathy, grade 3 elevated transaminases, grade 3 dizziness, grade 3 dehydration, grade 3 shortness of breath, and grade 4 vasovagal syncope (1 pt each). Grade 2 neuropathy has been seen in 4 patients. Conclusions: The Ix, M, P regimen is active as second-line therapy in CRPC patients with progressive disease after docetaxel therapy and is reasonably well tolerated. Further investigation of this regimen is warranted. This study was supported in part by CTEP/NCI and the DOD Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document