Assessment of eligibility criteria in renal cell carcinoma trials evaluating systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative. METHODS: vPhase I-III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi-square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO-FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real-world.

Examining Exclusion Criteria in Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of recommendations From the American Society Of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research.

PURPOSE: Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility criteria across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common criteria: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) criteria were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. RESULTS: Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion criteria of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader criteria may ameliorate generalizability.

The prevalence of metabolic conditions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with health and sociodemographic factors.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of evidence on the relationship between COVID-19 and metabolic conditions among the general U.S. population. We examined the prevalence and association of metabolic conditions with health and sociodemographic factors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2019 (N = 5,359) and 2020 (N = 3,830) Health Information National Trends Surveys on adults to compare observations before (2019) and during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted weighted descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess the study objective. RESULTS: During the pandemic, compared to pre-pandemic, the prevalence of diabetes (18.10% vs. 17.28%) has increased, while the prevalence of hypertension (36.38% vs. 36.36%) and obesity (34.68% vs. 34.18%) has remained similar. In general, the prevalence of metabolic conditions was higher during the pandemic (56.09%) compared to pre-pandemic (54.96%). Compared to never smokers, former smokers had higher odds of metabolic conditions (AOR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.87 and AOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.10, 2.25) before and during the pandemic, respectively. People with mild anxiety/depression symptoms (before: AOR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.06, 2.19 and during: AOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01, 2.38) had higher odds of metabolic conditions relative to those with no anxiety/depression symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study found increased odds of metabolic conditions among certain subgroups of US adults during the pandemic. We recommend further studies and proper allocation of public health resources to address these conditions.