Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD, discusses what should be done when a trial results in a negative finding.
An observation over time as a clinical investigator in the field of oncology is the experience of testing 1 or more agents in trials that have shown efficacy in multiple cancer types but surprisingly negative results in following trials in other cancers. An example is PD-1 inhibition alone or with anti–CTLA-4 showing a positive result in some cancers but having negative trials in other subsets of patients or diseases, some of which are quite similar etiologically, such as smoking-induced aerodigestive cancers. Or adding immune-oncology therapy and other agents to chemotherapy or radiation therapy, which has shown benefit in select diseases but has demonstrated some surprisingly negative results lately in others.
All cancers are different, and heterogeneity of cancers in various populations may lead to negative results based on biology. Additional reasons, and perhaps more cynical interpretations, may suggest study design flaws or even just bad luck. Enrollment by less-experienced sites or investigators may be responsible as well, warranting the proliferation of contract research organizations (or CROs), which are very expensive trial-conduct groups that raise the specter of poorly run trials and data management to justify their intermediary role in oncology research and clinical trial implementation.
What should be done when a trial results in a negative finding? The field, cooperative group, clinical trial committee, pharmaceutical sponsor, and perhaps even the FDA are at a loss as to whether to scrap the agent or regimen, move on to a different cancer hoping for a better clinical response, perform a follow-up companion trial with a similar agent, or simply move on from that disease.
In the end, none of these results are satisfactory for patients, the sponsor, or the oncologist investigators who spent many hours designing and conducting the trial with high hopes for exciting and practice-changing results in contributions to patient care. Thus, we should more clearly define when agents seem to fail in 1 cancer type vs another—when this surprising result conflicts with positive outcomes in other cancers—to determine whether an active agent was prematurely discarded in a disease, whether a trial was not designed or conducted ideally, or whether biology was speaking. The implications for sunk costs and patient outcomes from new agents may be substantial.
Overcoming Barriers in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Path Forward for Better Patient Care
April 29th 2024Clinical trials play a pivotal role in developing effective therapies, yet their integration is challenged by issues such as insufficient reimbursement structures, misaligned incentives, physician burnout, and a complex regulatory environment.
Read More
Gholam Analyzes Treatment Outcomes for Advanced HCC in Child-Pugh B Population
April 28th 2024During a live Community Case Forum event in partnership with the Tennessee Oncology Practice Society, Pierre Gholam, MD, examined the current state of treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, looking in particular at what data is available for those with Child-Pugh B and C status who have poorer outcomes and have limited data from prospective clinical trials.
Read More