Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials.

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design. SIGNIFICANCE: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).

Endoscopic and imaging outcomes of PD-1 therapy in localised dMMR colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (IO) is emerging as a therapeutic option for patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) given high pathological response rates. The aim of the study was to characterise imaging and endoscopic response to IO. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with localised dMMR CRC that received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy was conducted. Endoscopy, imaging, and pathological outcomes were reviewed to determine response to treatment according to standardised criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients had received IO for the treatment of localised CRC (median eight cycles). Among evaluable cases (n = 31 for endoscopy and n = 34 for imaging), the best endoscopic response was complete response (CR) in 45% of cases, and the best radiographic response was CR in 23% of cases. Imaging CR rate after ≤4 cycles of IO (n = 1) was 6% compared to 44% after >4 IO cycles (n = 7). Among 28 patients with imaging and endoscopy available, a discrepancy in best response was noted in 15 (54%) cases. At a median follow-up of 28.2 months from IO start, 18 patients underwent surgical resection of which 11 (61%) had pathological CR (pCR). Despite pCR or no evidence of progression ≥6 months after completion of IO among non-operatively managed patients, 72% and 42% of patients had non-CR on imaging and endoscopy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between imaging and endoscopy are prevalent, and irregularities identified on these modalities can be identified despite pathological remission. Improved clinical response criteria are warranted.