Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

An analysis of published trials found that current use of pragmatic trial labels is uninformative.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized trials labelled as "pragmatic" are attractive to funders, patients, and clinicians as the label implies that the results are directly applicable to clinical care. We examined how authors justify use of the label (e.g., by referring to one or more PRECIS [PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary]-2 domains). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed primary trial reports published 2014-2019, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and using the pragmatic label anywhere in the report. RESULTS: Among 415 trials, the label was justified by reference to at least one design element in 282 (68.0%); of these, 240 (85.1%) referenced trial characteristics that can be mapped to one or more of the PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly eligibility (91, 32.3%), setting (90, 31.9%), flexibility delivery (89, 31.6%), and organization (75, 26.6%); 42 (14.9%) referenced characteristics that are not PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly type of intervention/comparator (48, 17%), recruitment without consent (22, 7.8%), routinely collected data (22, 7.8%), and cluster randomization (20, 7.1%). Most reports referenced only one or two design elements. Overall, 9/415 (2.2%) provided PRECIS wheels. CONCLUSION: Current use of pragmatic labels is uninformative. Authors should clarify the decision the trial is intended to support and include a PRECIS-2 table to make the design transparent.

Real-World Utilization Patterns of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics in Canada: A Retrospective Study.

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the real-world prevalence of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic use and determine when LAIs are being used in sequencing of antipsychotic medications among Canadian patients with schizophrenia. Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using Canadian pharmacy prescription data between August 2005 and June 2017. Patients with inferred schizophrenia spectrum disorder were indexed on the date of their first antipsychotic prescription and analyzed for minimum 12 months to track lines of antipsychotic therapy and LAI utilization. Results: A total of 16,300 patients were identified for analysis. 48.2% and 46.0% of index antipsychotic prescriptions were prescribed by a general practitioner/family medicine doctor and psychiatrist, respectively. 1,062 (6.5%) patients used an LAI during the study period. Of those patients, 789 used an LAI within two years of index (74.3% of LAI users; 4.8% of all patients). The majority of LAI use (62.0%) occurred in the third line of therapy or later. 65.0% of patients had tried at least two therapy lines, and most patients reported gaps of six months to one year between treatment lines. Conclusion: Despite their potential to reduce relapse in schizophrenia by improving treatment adherence, this study shows LAIs continue to be under-utilized in Canada. When used, LAIs are positioned late in sequencing of antipsychotic medications, often not initiated until years after diagnosis. Continued preference for oral APs with poor adherence may be negatively impacting prognosis and exacerbating burden of schizophrenia. Efforts should be invested to understand barriers to LAI uptake and advocate for earlier, widespread use of LAIs.