| 1. |
- ter Veer, Emil, et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease
- 2018
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 19:3, s. E151-E160
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer : Supported by the ARCAD Group
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 100, s. 35-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. Methods: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Results: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. Conclusions: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.
|
|
| 3. |
- Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer : A systematic review
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 96, s. 115-124
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 – June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.Results: Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5–18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%–100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%–25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1–9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4–11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.Conclusions: We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.
|
|
