Outcomes in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma: A systematic review

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY Critical reviews in oncology/hematology Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104529
{"title":"Outcomes in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma: A systematic review","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Many clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma do not use patient important outcomes and rely on the use of surrogate endpoints. The aim of this systematic review was to depict the landscape of randomized controlled trials in myeloma research and compile the endpoints utilized.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials in myeloma published in English up to October 2023. We included trials exploring efficacy of therapeutic modalities for myeloma itself or supportive care interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 2181 records, reporting data from 624 trials (448 comparing anti-myeloma treatments and 176 comparing supportive interventions) were deemed eligible. The most common primary outcome reported was disease response, followed by progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Across all trials, 119 (19.1 %) used OS as the primary endpoint, while 316 (50.6 %) listed it as a secondary endpoint. Quality of life was less commonly prioritized, featured as primary endpoint only in seven studies (1.1 %) and as secondary endpoint in 115 studies (18.4 %). Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were more likely (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.85, 95 % CI 2.41–6.35) to use PFS as primary outcome. Similarly, studies with authors that had conflicts of interest with the funding source were more likely (OR 4.57, 95 % CI 2.72–7.92) to use PFS as the primary outcome.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While randomized controlled trials for multiple myeloma predominantly rely on surrogate endpoints, particularly PFS, the importance of OS as an outcome should not be overlooked.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11358,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040842824002725","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Many clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma do not use patient important outcomes and rely on the use of surrogate endpoints. The aim of this systematic review was to depict the landscape of randomized controlled trials in myeloma research and compile the endpoints utilized.

Methods

We searched Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials in myeloma published in English up to October 2023. We included trials exploring efficacy of therapeutic modalities for myeloma itself or supportive care interventions.

Results

A total of 2181 records, reporting data from 624 trials (448 comparing anti-myeloma treatments and 176 comparing supportive interventions) were deemed eligible. The most common primary outcome reported was disease response, followed by progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Across all trials, 119 (19.1 %) used OS as the primary endpoint, while 316 (50.6 %) listed it as a secondary endpoint. Quality of life was less commonly prioritized, featured as primary endpoint only in seven studies (1.1 %) and as secondary endpoint in 115 studies (18.4 %). Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were more likely (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.85, 95 % CI 2.41–6.35) to use PFS as primary outcome. Similarly, studies with authors that had conflicts of interest with the funding source were more likely (OR 4.57, 95 % CI 2.72–7.92) to use PFS as the primary outcome.

Conclusion

While randomized controlled trials for multiple myeloma predominantly rely on surrogate endpoints, particularly PFS, the importance of OS as an outcome should not be overlooked.
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
多发性骨髓瘤治疗干预随机对照试验的结果:系统综述。
目的:许多针对多发性骨髓瘤治疗干预措施的临床试验并未使用对患者有重要意义的结果,而是依赖于使用替代终点。本系统性综述旨在描述骨髓瘤研究中随机对照试验的情况,并汇编所使用的终点:我们检索了 Embase、PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆中截至 2023 年 10 月用英文发表的骨髓瘤随机对照试验。我们纳入了探讨骨髓瘤本身治疗方法或支持性护理干预措施疗效的试验:共有2181条记录被认为符合条件,这些记录报告了来自624项试验(448项比较了抗骨髓瘤治疗方法,176项比较了支持性干预措施)的数据。最常见的主要结果是疾病反应,其次是无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。在所有试验中,有119项(19.1%)将OS作为主要终点,316项(50.6%)将其列为次要终点。生活质量较少被优先考虑,仅有7项研究(1.1%)将其作为主要终点,115项研究(18.4%)将其作为次要终点。由制药业资助的研究更有可能将 PFS 作为主要结果(Odds Ratio [OR] 3.85,95% CI 2.41 至 6.35)。同样,作者与资助方存在利益冲突的研究更有可能(OR 4.57,95% CI 2.72-7.92)将PFS作为主要结果:尽管多发性骨髓瘤随机对照试验主要依赖于替代终点,尤其是PFS,但OS作为一个结果的重要性不容忽视。
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
11.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
213
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology publishes scholarly, critical reviews in all fields of oncology and hematology written by experts from around the world. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology is the Official Journal of the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the International Society of Liquid Biopsy.
期刊最新文献
Targeting epigenetic mechanisms of resistance to chemotherapy in gliomas Prevalence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with antibody-drug conjugates in metastatic breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Associations between peripheral whole blood cell counts derived indexes and cancer prognosis: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies How safe and effective is irradiating radiation-induced meningiomas? Single-center experience in primary and salvage Gamma-Knife Radiosurgery, systematic review, and metanalysis of current evidence on the topic Outcomes in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for multiple myeloma: A systematic review
×
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