Benchmarks of Success in Radiotherapy versus Systemic Therapy National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) Randomized Controlled Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Nina N Sanford, Qian Shi, David M Hein, William A Hall
{"title":"Benchmarks of Success in Radiotherapy versus Systemic Therapy National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) Randomized Controlled Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)","authors":"Nina N Sanford, Qian Shi, David M Hein, William A Hall","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) is the largest government sponsored organization in the United States tasked with funding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. It is unknown whether there are differences in study design by treatment modality. We evaluated differences in methodology between trials testing radiotherapy versus systemic therapy. Methods The Clinical Trials Support Unit website was used to identify active RCTs of systemic or radiotherapy across NCTN cooperative groups through December 31, 2023. Studies in disease sites with > 5 radiotherapy trials were included. Each trial’s protocol was reviewed to obtain key design information that were descriptively compared: primary endpoint, hypothesis testing type (superiority vs non-inferiority), non-inferiority margin, hypothesized effect size, power, and significance level. Results A total of 186 RCTs (142 systemic therapy, 44 radiotherapy) were examined. Comparing primary endpoints, 59.1% vs 26.8% of radiotherapy vs systemic therapy trials, respectively, had a primary endpoint of overall survival. Nearly 1/3 of radiotherapy trials (31.2%) were non-inferiority vs 6.3% of systemic therapy trials. Among breast cancer trials, 75% of radiotherapy studies were non-inferiority vs 11.1% systemic. Target effect size, power, and significance level were similar by treatment modality within tumor types and disease settings. Conclusion Among NCTN cooperative group RCTs, there were marked differences in study design between radiotherapy vs systemic therapy trials. A higher benchmark for defining success for radiotherapy interventions was observed with greater emphasis on overall survival as primary endpoint. This may reflect differences in therapeutic mechanism by modality and types of study questions posed.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) is the largest government sponsored organization in the United States tasked with funding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. It is unknown whether there are differences in study design by treatment modality. We evaluated differences in methodology between trials testing radiotherapy versus systemic therapy. Methods The Clinical Trials Support Unit website was used to identify active RCTs of systemic or radiotherapy across NCTN cooperative groups through December 31, 2023. Studies in disease sites with > 5 radiotherapy trials were included. Each trial’s protocol was reviewed to obtain key design information that were descriptively compared: primary endpoint, hypothesis testing type (superiority vs non-inferiority), non-inferiority margin, hypothesized effect size, power, and significance level. Results A total of 186 RCTs (142 systemic therapy, 44 radiotherapy) were examined. Comparing primary endpoints, 59.1% vs 26.8% of radiotherapy vs systemic therapy trials, respectively, had a primary endpoint of overall survival. Nearly 1/3 of radiotherapy trials (31.2%) were non-inferiority vs 6.3% of systemic therapy trials. Among breast cancer trials, 75% of radiotherapy studies were non-inferiority vs 11.1% systemic. Target effect size, power, and significance level were similar by treatment modality within tumor types and disease settings. Conclusion Among NCTN cooperative group RCTs, there were marked differences in study design between radiotherapy vs systemic therapy trials. A higher benchmark for defining success for radiotherapy interventions was observed with greater emphasis on overall survival as primary endpoint. This may reflect differences in therapeutic mechanism by modality and types of study questions posed.
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
放疗与全身治疗的成功基准国家临床试验网络(NCTN)由国家癌症研究所(NCI)赞助的随机对照试验
国家临床试验网络(NCTN)是美国最大的政府资助组织,负责资助肿瘤学随机对照试验(rct)。目前尚不清楚不同治疗方式的研究设计是否存在差异。我们评估了放疗与全身治疗试验在方法学上的差异。方法通过临床试验支持单位网站,识别截至2023年12月31日NCTN合作组的全身或放疗的有效随机对照试验。疾病部位&;gt;纳入5项放疗试验。对每个试验方案进行回顾,以获得描述性比较的关键设计信息:主要终点、假设检验类型(优势与非劣效性)、非劣效性裕度、假设效应大小、功率和显著性水平。结果共186例rct,其中全身治疗142例,放疗44例。比较主要终点,59.1%的放疗试验和26.8%的全身治疗试验分别以总生存期为主要终点。近1/3的放疗试验(31.2%)是非劣效性,而全身治疗试验为6.3%。在乳腺癌试验中,75%的放疗研究是非劣效性的,而全身放疗研究为11.1%。在肿瘤类型和疾病环境中,不同治疗方式的目标效应大小、功率和显著性水平相似。结论在NCTN合作组随机对照试验中,放疗与全身治疗试验在研究设计上存在显著差异。我们观察到一个更高的标准来定义放疗干预的成功,更强调总生存期作为主要终点。这可能反映了不同的治疗机制的方式和类型的研究问题提出。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of screening for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers: a microsimulation-based modeling study Prognostic implications of risk definitions from the monarchE and NATALEE trials Response to Oleribe Comprehensive Genome Profiling for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Metastatic Tumors: Real-World Evidence Meta-Analysis and Registry Data Implementation The association between clinical trial participation, drug costs, and performance in the Oncology Care Model (OCM)
×
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