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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 244-250 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | European Journal of Cancer |
| Volume | 101 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 1 2018 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -