Bostjan Seruga

Optimal management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: highlights from a European Expert Consensus Panel.

The exponential growth of novel therapies for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) over the last decade has created an acute need for education and guidance of clinicians regarding optimal strategies for patient management. A multidisciplinary panel of 21 European experts in mCRPC assembled for comprehensive discussion and consensus development, seeking to move the field forward and provide guidance and perspectives on optimal selection and sequencing of therapeutic agents and monitoring of response to treatment and disease progression. A total of 110 clinically-relevant questions were addressed and a modified Delphi method was utilised to obtain a consensus. The panel reached a consensus on several important issues, providing recommendations on appropriate phase III clinical trial end-points and optimal strategies for imaging and monitoring of bone metastases. Guidance regarding selection and sequencing of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed or progressive mCRPC is emphasised, including the use of novel bone-targeted agents, chemotherapy, androgen receptor pathway-targeted agents and immunotherapy. The impact of drug resistance and prostate-specific antigen flare on treatment decisions was also addressed. Ultimately, individualised therapy for patients with mCRPC is dependent on continued refinement of clinical decision-making based on patient and disease characteristics. This consensus statement offers clinicians expert guidance on the implementation of recent advances to improve patient outcome, focusing on the future of prostate cancer care.

Failures in Phase III: Causes and Consequences

Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in oncology fail to lead to registration of new therapies more often than RCTs in other medical disciplines. Most RCTs are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, which reflects industrys increasing responsibility in cancer drug development. Many preclinical models are unreliable for evaluation of new anticancer agents, and stronger evidence of biologic effect should be required before a new agent enters the clinical development pathway. Whenever possible, early-phase clinical trials should include pharmacodynamic studies to demonstrate that new agents inhibit their molecular targets and demonstrate substantial antitumor activity at tolerated doses in an enriched population of patients. Here, we review recent RCTs and found that these conditions were not met for most of the targeted anticancer agents, which failed in recent RCTs. Many recent phase III RCTs were initiated without sufficient evidence of activity from early-phase clinical trials. Because patients treated within such trials can be harmed, they should not be undertaken. The bar should also be raised when making decisions to proceed from phase II to III and from phase III to marketing approval. Many approved agents showed only better progression-free survival than standard treatment in phase III trials and were not shown to improve survival or its quality. Introduction of value-based pricing of new anticancer agents would dissuade the continued development of agents with borderline activity in early-phase clinical trials. When collaborating with industry, oncologists should be more critical and better advocates for cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res; 21(20); 4552–60. ©2015 AACR. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “Innovations to Speed Drug Development.”

Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND Bias in reporting efficacy and toxicity in clinical trials may impact treatment decisions. Here, we report quality of reporting of efficacy and of toxicity in articles describing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer therapy and the association between biased reporting and study results, funding and financial relationships of the authors with the sponsor. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed articles published from July 2010 to December 2012 in six high-impact journals reporting RCTs of systemic treatment for cancer. Bias in reporting of the primary end-point and toxicity were assessed. Associations between biased reporting and study results, funding source and financial ties of the author with the funding source were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS Two hundred articles were identified. Among 107 RCTs where there was no statistically significant difference in the primary end-point between the two arms, 50 (47%) reports used biased reporting in the abstract of the paper to imply benefit of the experimental treatment. Toxicity was not reported in the abstract in 18.5% of the studies and this was associated with a positive primary end-point. Source of funding and financial ties were not associated with biased reporting. CONCLUSIONS Bias in reporting of efficacy outcomes is common for studies with a negative primary end-point and can lead to off-label misuse of experimental therapies, if they are approved for other indications. Toxicity is under-reported, especially for studies with a positive primary end-point, leading to a biased view of the safety of new treatments.

Relevance of randomised controlled trials in oncology

Well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can prevent bias in the comparison of treatments and provide a sound basis for changes in clinical practice. However, the design and reporting of many RCTs can render their results of little relevance to clinical practice. In this Personal View, we discuss the limitations of RCT data and suggest some ways to improve the clinical relevance of RCTs in the everyday management of patients with cancer. RCTs should ask questions of clinical rather than commercial interest, avoid non-validated surrogate endpoints in registration trials, and have entry criteria that allow inclusion of all patients who are fit to receive treatment. Furthermore, RCTs should be reported with complete accounting of frequency and management of toxicities, and with strict guidelines to ensure freedom from bias. Premature reporting of results should be avoided. The bar for clinical benefit should be raised for drug registration, which should require publication and review of mature data from RCTs, post-marketing health outcome studies, and value-based pricing.

Under-reporting of harm in clinical trials

Appropriate safety evaluations of anticancer drugs are crucial to assess their benefit-risk ratio. Substantial evidence shows that clinicians under-report harm in clinical trials, and at least three factors contribute to this problem: assessment of harm by clinicians might not represent the experience of patients; harm might be detected within trials, but is not reported appropriately by investigators or reporting is influenced by sponsors; and short-term follow-up might not detect long-term and potentially serious toxicities. Additionally, because of the selection of patients with good functional status in clinical trials, study results might not apply to patients treated in everyday clinical practice. New approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of clinical trials should include patient-reported assessment of side-effects. Effective pharmacovigilance programmes and large-scale observational studies are needed to improve understanding of the tolerability of anticancer drugs in a real world setting.

Pretreatment Differences in Intraindividual Variability in Reaction Time between Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer and Healthy Controls.

OBJECTIVES Chemotherapy has adverse effects on cognitive performance in women treated for breast cancer, but less is known about the period before chemotherapy. Studies have focused on mean level of performance, yet there is increasing recognition that variability in performance within an individual is also an important behavioral indicator of cognitive functioning and underlying neural integrity. METHODS We examined intraindividual variability (IIV) before chemotherapy and surgery in women diagnosed with breast cancer (n=31), and a healthy control group matched on age and education (n=25). IIV was calculated across trials of a computerized Stroop task, including an examination of the slowest and fastest trials of reaction time (RT) responses. RESULTS The groups were equivalent on overall accuracy and speed, and participants in both groups were less accurate and slower on incongruent trials compared with congruent trials. However, women with breast cancer became more variable with increased task difficulty relative to healthy controls. Among the slowest RT responses, women with breast cancer were significantly more variable than healthy controls on incongruent trials. This suggests that a specific variability-producing process (e.g., attentional lapses) occurs in task conditions that require executive control (e.g., incongruent trials). CONCLUSIONS Results are consistent with other evidence of executive dysfunction among women treated for breast cancer. These findings highlight the importance of pretreatment assessment and show that variability in performance provides information about cognition that measures of central tendency do not.