A pooled analysis of published, basket trials in cancer medicine

Antonious Hazim, Vinay Prasad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is widespread interest in cancer basket trials. However, to date, there has been no formal analysis of all published basket trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all published basket trials in cancer medicine. We included studies that (1) did not place restriction on tumour type and (2) used a biomarker for the basis of enrolment (3) administered at least one anti-cancer agent in prospective fashion and (4) reported responses by each tumour type included. We sought information regarding the tumour histology included and the response rate in basket trials. In addition, we used national cancer statistics to identify which tumour types have been overrepresented in basket studies (i.e. more representation in trials than their incidence would suggest) and those which are under-represented. Results: We identified eight articles with a combined enrolment of 1176 patients were included in our analysis, representing over 33 tumour types. Ovarian and fallopian tube cancers 221/1176 (19%), colorectal cancer 144/1176 (12%) and sarcoma 129 (11%) were the most common tumours represented, whereas renal cell cancer, seminoma, thymic carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumour and appendiceal carcinoma were the least represented with one case each. The overall response rate was 25%. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumour types (linear regression beta = 0.58, 95% confidence interval = −0.037–1.21) (slope < 1 implies under-representation, >1 over-representation). Conclusions: We found that, to date, over 1100 patients have been enrolled on published basket studies. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumours. The overall response rate was 25%. Patients enrolling on basket trials should be counselled appropriately that although these studies are highly promising, most patients did not respond. Future targets and drugs may improve on these results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)244-250
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume101
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

Medicine
Neoplasms
Fallopian Tube Neoplasms
Thymus Neoplasms
Seminoma
Thymoma
Neuroendocrine Tumors
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Sarcoma
Colorectal Neoplasms
Linear Models
Histology
Biomarkers
Confidence Intervals
Carcinoma
Incidence

Keywords

  • Basket trials
  • Genome driven oncology
  • Master protocols
  • Precision oncology
  • Tumor agnostic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

A pooled analysis of published, basket trials in cancer medicine. / Hazim, Antonious; Prasad, Vinay.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 101, 01.09.2018, p. 244-250.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{836b5edb63f44d7e8db50af314494bda,
title = "A pooled analysis of published, basket trials in cancer medicine",
abstract = "Background: There is widespread interest in cancer basket trials. However, to date, there has been no formal analysis of all published basket trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all published basket trials in cancer medicine. We included studies that (1) did not place restriction on tumour type and (2) used a biomarker for the basis of enrolment (3) administered at least one anti-cancer agent in prospective fashion and (4) reported responses by each tumour type included. We sought information regarding the tumour histology included and the response rate in basket trials. In addition, we used national cancer statistics to identify which tumour types have been overrepresented in basket studies (i.e. more representation in trials than their incidence would suggest) and those which are under-represented. Results: We identified eight articles with a combined enrolment of 1176 patients were included in our analysis, representing over 33 tumour types. Ovarian and fallopian tube cancers 221/1176 (19{\%}), colorectal cancer 144/1176 (12{\%}) and sarcoma 129 (11{\%}) were the most common tumours represented, whereas renal cell cancer, seminoma, thymic carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumour and appendiceal carcinoma were the least represented with one case each. The overall response rate was 25{\%}. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumour types (linear regression beta = 0.58, 95{\%} confidence interval = −0.037–1.21) (slope < 1 implies under-representation, >1 over-representation). Conclusions: We found that, to date, over 1100 patients have been enrolled on published basket studies. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumours. The overall response rate was 25{\%}. Patients enrolling on basket trials should be counselled appropriately that although these studies are highly promising, most patients did not respond. Future targets and drugs may improve on these results.",
keywords = "Basket trials, Genome driven oncology, Master protocols, Precision oncology, Tumor agnostic",
author = "Antonious Hazim and Vinay Prasad",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "244--250",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A pooled analysis of published, basket trials in cancer medicine

AU - Hazim, Antonious

AU - Prasad, Vinay

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Background: There is widespread interest in cancer basket trials. However, to date, there has been no formal analysis of all published basket trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all published basket trials in cancer medicine. We included studies that (1) did not place restriction on tumour type and (2) used a biomarker for the basis of enrolment (3) administered at least one anti-cancer agent in prospective fashion and (4) reported responses by each tumour type included. We sought information regarding the tumour histology included and the response rate in basket trials. In addition, we used national cancer statistics to identify which tumour types have been overrepresented in basket studies (i.e. more representation in trials than their incidence would suggest) and those which are under-represented. Results: We identified eight articles with a combined enrolment of 1176 patients were included in our analysis, representing over 33 tumour types. Ovarian and fallopian tube cancers 221/1176 (19%), colorectal cancer 144/1176 (12%) and sarcoma 129 (11%) were the most common tumours represented, whereas renal cell cancer, seminoma, thymic carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumour and appendiceal carcinoma were the least represented with one case each. The overall response rate was 25%. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumour types (linear regression beta = 0.58, 95% confidence interval = −0.037–1.21) (slope < 1 implies under-representation, >1 over-representation). Conclusions: We found that, to date, over 1100 patients have been enrolled on published basket studies. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumours. The overall response rate was 25%. Patients enrolling on basket trials should be counselled appropriately that although these studies are highly promising, most patients did not respond. Future targets and drugs may improve on these results.

AB - Background: There is widespread interest in cancer basket trials. However, to date, there has been no formal analysis of all published basket trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all published basket trials in cancer medicine. We included studies that (1) did not place restriction on tumour type and (2) used a biomarker for the basis of enrolment (3) administered at least one anti-cancer agent in prospective fashion and (4) reported responses by each tumour type included. We sought information regarding the tumour histology included and the response rate in basket trials. In addition, we used national cancer statistics to identify which tumour types have been overrepresented in basket studies (i.e. more representation in trials than their incidence would suggest) and those which are under-represented. Results: We identified eight articles with a combined enrolment of 1176 patients were included in our analysis, representing over 33 tumour types. Ovarian and fallopian tube cancers 221/1176 (19%), colorectal cancer 144/1176 (12%) and sarcoma 129 (11%) were the most common tumours represented, whereas renal cell cancer, seminoma, thymic carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumour and appendiceal carcinoma were the least represented with one case each. The overall response rate was 25%. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumour types (linear regression beta = 0.58, 95% confidence interval = −0.037–1.21) (slope < 1 implies under-representation, >1 over-representation). Conclusions: We found that, to date, over 1100 patients have been enrolled on published basket studies. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumours. The overall response rate was 25%. Patients enrolling on basket trials should be counselled appropriately that although these studies are highly promising, most patients did not respond. Future targets and drugs may improve on these results.

KW - Basket trials

KW - Genome driven oncology

KW - Master protocols

KW - Precision oncology

KW - Tumor agnostic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050998508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050998508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.035

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.035

M3 - Article

VL - 101

SP - 244

EP - 250

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

ER -