A novel framework to assess haematology and oncology registration trials: The THEOREMM project

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of Clinical Investigation Pub Date : 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1111/eci.14267
Timothée Olivier, Alyson Haslam, Patricia Burke, Isabelle Boutron, Florian Naudet, John P. A. Ioannidis, Vinay Prasad
{"title":"A novel framework to assess haematology and oncology registration trials: The THEOREMM project","authors":"Timothée Olivier,&nbsp;Alyson Haslam,&nbsp;Patricia Burke,&nbsp;Isabelle Boutron,&nbsp;Florian Naudet,&nbsp;John P. A. Ioannidis,&nbsp;Vinay Prasad","doi":"10.1111/eci.14267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies—ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework—do not integrate these important shortcomings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)—that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Not applicable.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":"54 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.14267","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies—ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework—do not integrate these important shortcomings.

Methods

We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)—that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework.

Results

Not applicable.

Conclusions

Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估血液学和肿瘤学注册试验的新框架:THEOREMM 项目。
背景:方法学上的局限性影响了大量肿瘤学和血液学试验,使人们担心试验结果的适用性。例如,次优对照组或病情恶化后获得最佳治疗的机会有限,可能会使试验结果偏向于试验组获益。除了这些限制不会阻碍药物进入市场这一事实外,其他评估工具,如专业协会开发的评估工具--ESMO-MCBS 和 ASCO 价值框架--并没有整合这些重要的缺陷:我们建议建立一个新的框架,评估血液学和肿瘤学癌症临床试验(随机或单臂)的注册情况,即导致上市授权的试验。该方法的主要步骤是:(1) 组建科学委员会;(2) 通过预先指定、预先登记和协议化的方法确定范围、目标和方法;(3) 对协议进行预先登记;(4) 对影响肿瘤学试验的局限性和偏差进行范围审查,并评估现有的评分或方法;(5) 制定框架中应包括和评估的特征清单;(6) 通过向参与临床试验的高引用率血液学专家和肿瘤学专家发送调查问卷,对每个特征进行评估;(7) 最终确定框架的第一版。结果:不适用:不适用:我们的建议是针对当前试验评估中缺乏对关键限制因素的考虑而提出的。我们的目标是建立一个框架,专门用于评估肿瘤学和血液学领域导致上市授权的单一试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.60%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information [225Ac]Ac-PSMA for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Machine learning for stroke in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation: A post-hoc analysis of the WARCEF trial. Structural aspects of CEACAM1 interactions. Clinical measures in chronic neuropathic pain are related to the Kennedy and endocannabinoid pathways.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1