Publications by authors named "Samantha Dolter"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Outcomes of patients with solid tumour malignancies treated with first-line immuno-oncology agents who do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

Eur J Cancer 2021 Jul 8;151:115-125. Epub 2021 May 8.

Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Immuno-oncology (IO)-based therapies have been approved based on randomised clinical trials, yet a significant proportion of real-world patients are not represented in these trials. We sought to compare the outcomes of trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients with advanced solid tumours treated with first-line (1L) IO therapy.

Patients And Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Database Consortium and the Alberta Immunotherapy Database, patients with advanced RCC, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma treated with 1L PD-(L)1 inhibition-based therapy were included. Trial eligibility was retrospectively determined as per commonly used exclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD) and time to next treatment (TTNT).

Results: A total of 395 of 1241 (32%) patients were deemed trial-ineligible. The main reasons for ineligibility based on preselected exclusion criteria were Karnofsky performance status <70%/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >1 (40%, 158 of 395), brain metastases (32%, 126 of 395), haemoglobin < 9 g/dL (16%, 63 of 395) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min (15%, 61 of 395). Between the ineligible vs. eligible groups, the median OS, ORR, median TD and median TTNT were 10.2 vs. 39.7 months (p < 0.01), 36% vs. 47% (p < 0.01), 2.7 vs. 6.9 months (p < 0.01) and 6.0 vs. 16.8 months (p < 0.01), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant inferior OS, TD and TTNT for trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients across all tumour types. Adjusted hazard ratios for death in RCC, NSCLC and melanoma were 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.77), 2.21 (95% CI 1.58-3.11) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.21-2.74), respectively..

Conclusions: Thirty-two percent of real-world patients treated with contemporary 1L IO-based therapies were ineligible for clinical trials. Although one-third of the trial-ineligible patients responded to treatment, the overall trial-ineligible population had inferior outcomes than trial-eligible patients. These data may guide patient counselling and temper expectations of benefit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.004DOI Listing
July 2021

Impact of Precision Medicine on Efficiencies of Novel Drug Development in Cancer.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2020 08;112(8):859-862

Studies of Translation, Ethics, and Medicine, McGill University Biomedical Ethics Unit, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Precision medicine (PM) offers opportunities for reducing the costs, burdens, and time associated with drug development. We examined time, number of trials, indications tested, and patient burden needed to achieve first U.S. Food and Drug Administration license for all five novel anticancer PM drugs and all 10 novel non-PM drugs receiving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval during 2010-2014. The 15 drug portfolios encompassed 242 trials: 87 for PM drugs and 155 for non-PM drugs. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for all prelicensure clinical trials, and data on time, patient numbers, indications tested, and total treatment-emergent grade 3-5 adverse events were measured from the first trial of each drug. We did not find patterns suggesting greater efficiencies in PM compared with non-PM. Gains in efficiency for PM drug development may be offset by challenges with recruitment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz212DOI Listing
August 2020