Yuejing Chen, Honghong Liu, Shaohua Bai, Xuejiao Han, Fei Jin, Bo Cui
{"title":"Clinical Benefits of new Systemic Therapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer Over Two Decades: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Yuejing Chen, Honghong Liu, Shaohua Bai, Xuejiao Han, Fei Jin, Bo Cui","doi":"10.1111/crj.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. This study aimed to examine the clinical benefits of new systemic therapies derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2023 based on the magnitude of clinical benefit scale developed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO-MCBS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched PubMed for Phase 3 RCTs on systemic therapy for SCLC published between January 2002 and December 2023. Therapeutic benefit was graded from 5 to 1 according to the ESMO-MCBS framework, with a score of 4 or 5 representing a meaningful clinical benefit. The statistical power of the trial design was also assessed using ESMO-MCBS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-four RCTs with 23 683 participants were eligible for inclusion. The number of RCTs related to molecular targeted therapy or immunotherapy has increased over the years. Among the 62 RCTs for which statistical power could be evaluated, 38 (61.3%) were designed to identify an effect size that would meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold and were less likely to investigate second- or subsequent-line treatment (15.8% vs. 50.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), have noninferiority design (0% vs. 25.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and set PFS (0% vs. 16.7%) or response rate (0% vs. 16.7%) as the only primary endpoint (<i>p</i> = 0.002). The ESMO-MCBS framework was applied in 29 RCTs reporting positive results, and only 8 (27.6%) met the threshold for a clinical benefit. The RCTs designed to detect differences that would meet the thresholds were more likely to demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit (87.5% vs. 50.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.099).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Most positive SCLC-RCTs did not meet the ESMO-MCBS threshold for meaningful clinical benefits. Strict power calculations should be adopted in the design of future RCTs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55247,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"18 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.70032","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.70032","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. This study aimed to examine the clinical benefits of new systemic therapies derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2023 based on the magnitude of clinical benefit scale developed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO-MCBS).
Methods
We searched PubMed for Phase 3 RCTs on systemic therapy for SCLC published between January 2002 and December 2023. Therapeutic benefit was graded from 5 to 1 according to the ESMO-MCBS framework, with a score of 4 or 5 representing a meaningful clinical benefit. The statistical power of the trial design was also assessed using ESMO-MCBS.
Results
Sixty-four RCTs with 23 683 participants were eligible for inclusion. The number of RCTs related to molecular targeted therapy or immunotherapy has increased over the years. Among the 62 RCTs for which statistical power could be evaluated, 38 (61.3%) were designed to identify an effect size that would meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold and were less likely to investigate second- or subsequent-line treatment (15.8% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.004), have noninferiority design (0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.002) and set PFS (0% vs. 16.7%) or response rate (0% vs. 16.7%) as the only primary endpoint (p = 0.002). The ESMO-MCBS framework was applied in 29 RCTs reporting positive results, and only 8 (27.6%) met the threshold for a clinical benefit. The RCTs designed to detect differences that would meet the thresholds were more likely to demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit (87.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.099).
Conclusion
Most positive SCLC-RCTs did not meet the ESMO-MCBS threshold for meaningful clinical benefits. Strict power calculations should be adopted in the design of future RCTs.
期刊介绍:
Overview
Effective with the 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format.
Aims and Scope
The Clinical Respiratory Journal (CRJ) provides a forum for clinical research in all areas of respiratory medicine from clinical lung disease to basic research relevant to the clinic.
We publish original research, review articles, case studies, editorials and book reviews in all areas of clinical lung disease including:
Asthma
Allergy
COPD
Non-invasive ventilation
Sleep related breathing disorders
Interstitial lung diseases
Lung cancer
Clinical genetics
Rhinitis
Airway and lung infection
Epidemiology
Pediatrics
CRJ provides a fast-track service for selected Phase II and Phase III trial studies.
Keywords
Clinical Respiratory Journal, respiratory, pulmonary, medicine, clinical, lung disease,
Abstracting and Indexing Information
Academic Search (EBSCO Publishing)
Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing)
Embase (Elsevier)
Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest)
Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley-Blackwell)
Hospital Premium Collection (ProQuest)
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics)
MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM)
ProQuest Central (ProQuest)
Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate Analytics)
SCOPUS (Elsevier)