Incorporating Biomarker Stratification into STAMPEDE: an Adaptive Multi-arm, Multi-stage Trial Platform

The treatment and outcomes for advanced prostate cancer have experienced significant progress over recent years. Importantly, the additional benefits of 'up front' chemotherapy (docetaxel) and abiraterone, over and above conventional androgen deprivation, have been separately demonstrated in the multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) STAMPEDE protocol, which continues recruitment to other questions. Alongside this, insights into the underlying molecular biology and, inevitably, the molecular heterogeneity of prostate cancer are opening the door to new therapeutic approaches. Incorporating this understanding and testing these hypotheses within STAMPEDE brings new challenges to the MAMS approach, but has the potential to further improve the outlook for this disease

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. METHODS: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. RESULTS: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. CONCLUSION: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption

Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized 3 intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention. DISCUSSION: In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. SUMMARY: Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares

Use of routinely collected health data in randomised clinical trials: comparison of trial-specific death data in the BOSS trial with NHS Digital data

Background: A promising approach to reduce the increasing costs of clinical trials is the use of routinely collected health data as participant data. However, the quality of this data could limit its usability as trial participant data. Methods: The BOSS trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing regular endoscopies versus endoscopies at need in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus with primary endpoint death. Data on death and cancer collected every 2 years after randomisation (trial-specific data) were compared to data received annually (all patients on one date) from the routinely collected health data source National Health Service (NHS) Digital. We investigated completeness, agreement and timeliness and looked at the implications for the primary trial outcome. Completeness and agreement were assessed by evaluating the number of reported and missing cases and any disparities between reported dates. Timeliness was considered by graphing the year a death was first reported in the trial-specific data against that for NHS Digital data. Implications on the primary trial outcome, overall survival, of using one of the data sources alone were investigated using Kaplan-Meier graphs. To assess the utility of cause of death and cancer diagnoses, oesophageal cancer cases were compared. Results: NHS Digital datasets included more deaths and often reported them sooner than the trial-specific data. The number reported as being from oesophageal cancer was similar in both datasets. Due to time lag in reporting and missing cases, the event rate appeared higher using the NHS Digital data. Conclusion: NHS Digital death data is useful for calculating overall survival where trial-specific follow-up is only every 2 years from randomisation and the follow-up requires patient response. The cancer data was not a large enough sample to assess usability. We suggest that this assessment of registry data is done for more phase III RCTs and for more registry data to get a more complete picture of when RCHD would be useful in phase III RCT. Trial registration: ISRCTN54190466 (BOSS) 1 Oct 2009

Prospective reporting of statistical analysis plans for randomised controlled trials

In 2017, JAMA published a statistical analysis plan (SAP) guidance document for randomised clinical trials (RCTs). This guidance is part of the EQUATOR Network of reporting resources and includes a checklist of minimum items for reporting details of statistical analysis of RCTs [1]. While the clinical trial protocol should describe the principal features of the statistical analysis, a separate detailed SAP containing sufficient information to support replication by an independent statistician may be needed [2,3,4]

Two-years Postradiotherapy Biopsies: Lessons from MRC RT01 Trial

Background: The importance of 2-yr postradiotherapy prostate biopsy status remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the value of 2 year post treatment biopsies in a randomised trial of radiotherapy dose escalation. Design, setting, and participants: Between 1998 and 2001, 843 men with localised prostate cancer were randomised to receive either control-64 Gy or escalated-74 Gy conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) in the MRC RT01 trial in combination with 3–6-mo neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Prostate biopsies were planned at 2 yr from start of CFRT in suitable men. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Prostate biopsy results and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels performed at 2 yr post-CFRT were evaluated with long-term biochemical progression free survival (bPFS) and overall survival. Outcome measures were timed from the 2-yr biopsy using a landmark approach. Results and limitations: A 2-yr biopsy was performed in 312/843 patients. One hundred and seventy-seven patients were included in the per-protocol group with median follow-up of 7.8 yr from biopsy. Median PSA at biopsy was 0.5 ng/ml. Sixty-four bPFS events were reported: 46/145 (32%) in patients with negative, 6/18 (33%) suspicious, and 12/14 (86%) positive biopsies. A positive biopsy was prognostic of worse bPFS, going forward, compared with negative and suspicious biopsies, hazard ratio (HR) = 4.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.50–9.26, p < 0.001). The estimate for survival was HR = 1.58 (95% CI: 0.52–4.78, p = 0.42). PSA values at 2 yr between 1.01 ng/ml and 2.09 ng/ml were also associated with subsequent PSA failures (HR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.98–3.71), bPFS events (HR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.81–3.32), and prostate cancer-specific survival (HR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.08–7.64) compared with PSA ≤1.0 ng/ml. Conclusions: Two-year postradiotherapy prostate biopsies have limited value in patients with PSA control but both positive biopsy and higher PSA status are strongly associated with future bPFS events. A policy of selected biopsy may provide an opportunity for early salvage interventions. Patient summary: Routine 2-yr postradiotherapy biopsy is not recommended but can be considered in selected patients with unfavourable post-treatment prostate-specific antigen levels who are suitable for early salvage treatments

Why are feasibility studies accessing routinely collected health data? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Feasibility trials are often undertaken to determine whether a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT) is achievable. In a recent review, 15 feasibility trials accessed routinely collected health data (RCHD) from UK national databases and registries. This paper looks at attributes of these trials and the reasons why they accessed RCHD. METHODS: We extracted data from all publicly available sources for the 15 feasibility studies found in a previous review of trials successfully accessing RCHD in the UK between 2013–2018 for the purpose of informing or supplementing participant data. We extracted trial characteristics, the registry accessed, and the way the RCHD was used. RESULTS: The 15 feasibility RCTs were conducted in a variety of disease areas, and were generally small (median sample size 100, range 41–4061) and individually randomised (60%, 9/15). The primary trial outcome was predominantly administrative (non-clinical) (80%, 12/15) such as feasibility of patient recruitment. They were more likely to recruit from secondary care (67%, 10/15) settings than primary (33%, 5/15). NHS Digital was the most commonly accessed registry (33% (5/15)) with SAIL databank (20% (3/15)), electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS) and Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANET) (each 13% 2/15) also being accessed. Where the information was clear, the trials used RCHD for data collection during the trial (47%, 7/15), follow-up after the trial (27%, 4/15) and recruitment (13%, 2/15). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, 15 feasibility trials successfully accessed UK RCHD. Feasibility trials would benefit, as with other trials, from guidance on reporting the use of RCHD in protocols and publications