AI Article Synopsis

  • Many cancer patients join clinical trials to access new treatments, but the actual benefits of these treatments, in terms of survival, have not been clearly established.
  • A study analyzed 128 randomized trials for six solid tumors, finding that patients in experimental groups had statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (1.25 months) and overall survival (1.18 months), despite smaller absolute gains.
  • However, patients in experimental groups also experienced a higher risk of serious adverse events (7.4% increase), highlighting the need to weigh potential benefits against risks.

Article Abstract

Background: Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear.

Purpose: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors.

Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021.

Study Selection: Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics.

Data Extraction: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Data Synthesis: The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups.

Limitations: Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care.

Conclusion: Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups.

Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M23-2515DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

experimental groups
12
randomized trials
8
assignment experimental
8
investigational drugs
8
pooled hazard
8
hazard ratio
8
patients experimental
8
survival gain
8
comparator group
8
trials
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!