Immunotherapies in Early and Advanced Renal Cell Cancer

The development of new immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies targeting the CTLA-4 or PD-1 axis has led to a revival of research on immunotherapies in solid tumours including renal cell cancer (RCC). The initial results observed with these monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of advanced melanoma have resulted in considerable interest in this treatment strategy in all tumour types. Preliminary data of these new antibodies in advanced RCC are promising and they have good safety profiles. Response rates are low but durable tumour control has been observed in some patients. However, at the moment there is no evidence that targeting the CTLA-4 or PD-1 axis provides a substantial clinical benefit compared to established treatment with tyrosine kinase or mTOR inhibitors. There are also no reliable predictive markers. At the moment, several randomised trials have been initiated to investigate the new immunomodulatory antibodies either as single agents or in combination with anti-VEGF targeted therapy. Vaccines have continued to be investigated in advanced and adjuvant settings. No trial has so far established vaccines as a standard treatment in either situation. There are still large randomised trials ongoing investigating the potential benefit of a vaccine in combination with standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. In this chapter we will summarise selected studies on immunotherapy in advanced RCC with a focus on anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. We will also touch briefly on the adjuvant situation and tumour vaccines

How to use FDA drug approval documents for evidence syntheses

There is compelling evidence that published trial information is selectively reported and that results not showing favourable effects of the tested treatments often remain unpublished. Clinical trial information published by regulatory authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may help to reduce such reporting biases. FDA approval documents are long and do not follow the typical structure of medical journal articles, which may discourage reviewers from using them for evidence syntheses. Our practical guidance on how to efficiently identify and use approval documents to find the relevant information may help promoting the use of this valuable data source for evidence syntheses

Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request. DESIGN Cohort study using medical record data. SETTING Three major cancer centres in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS 519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups. RESULTS OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)). CONCLUSION Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted

The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient.

OBJECTIVES: To assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies. RESULTS: Of 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%). CONCLUSION: Most RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed

Premature Discontinuation of Prospective Clinical Studies Approved by a Research Ethics Committee - A Comparison of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies.

Premature discontinuation of clinical studies affects about 25% of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which raises concerns about waste of scarce resources for research. The risk of discontinuation of non-randomised prospective studies (NPSs) is yet unclear. To compare the proportion of discontinued studies between NPSs and RCTs that received ethical approval. We systematically surveyed prospective longitudinal clinical studies that were approved by a single REC in Freiburg, Germany between 2000 and 2002. We collected study characteristics, identified subsequent publications, and surveyed investigators to elucidate whether a study was discontinued and, if so, why. Of 917 approved studies, 547 were prospective longitudinal studies (306 RCTs and 241 NPSs). NPSs were on average smaller than RCTs, more frequently single centre and pilot studies, and less frequently funded by industry. NPSs were less frequently discontinued than RCTs: 32/221 (14%) versus 78/288 (27%, p<0.001, missing data excluded). Poor recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation in both NPSs (36%) and RCTs (37%). Compared to RCTs, NPSs were at lower risk for discontinuation. Measures to reliably predict, sustain, and stimulate recruitment could prevent discontinuation of many RCTs but also of some NPSs

Prediction of RECRUITment In randomized clinical Trials (RECRUIT-IT)— : —rationale and design for an international collaborative study

Funding: BK has received a project specific grant from the University of Basel to realize this project. In addition, this study is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 320030_149496/1) and the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. The provided work by BG, JHL, CW, and JY has been supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Centre Support Grant P30 CA168524 and used BISR core. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. DC is supported by a Research Chair from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The mentioned funding sources have no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Induction therapy with the MATRix regimen in patients with newly diagnosed primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system - an international study of feasibility and efficacy in routine clinical practice

The MATRix chemoimmunotherapy regimen is highly effective in patients with newly diagnosed primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system (PCNSL). However, nothing is known about its feasibility and efficacy in everyday practice, where patients are more often older/frailer than those enrolled in clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective study addressing tolerability/efficacy of MATRix in 156 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL treated outside a clinical trial. Median age and ECOG Performance Status of considered patients were 62 years (range 28–78) and 2 (range 0–4). The overall response rate after MATRix was 79%. Nine (6%) treatment-related deaths were recorded. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.4–31.9%), the two-year progression-free and overall survival were 56% (95% CI 48.4–64.9%) and 64.1% (95% CI 56.7–72.5%) respectively. Patients not eligible for the IELSG32 trial were treated with lower dose intensity and had substantially worse outcomes than those fulfilling inclusion criteria. This is the largest series of PCNSL patients treated with MATRix outside a trial and recapitulates the IELSG32 trial outcomes in the non-trial setting for patients who fit the trial criteria. These data underscore the feasibility and efficacy of MATRix as induction treatment for fit patients in routine practice

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis

BACKGROUND We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research

Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE)

OBJECTIVES Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist. DESIGN Repeated cross sectional study. SETTING Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs). PARTICIPANTS RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported RESULTS: The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve