Search

Purpose Our study aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of clinical trials using abiraterone in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted on May 24, 2023, using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data on adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to assess risks, while ORR and PSA-RR were used to assess benefits. Trials were categorized as positive, negative, or indeterminate based on their safety profiles and efficacy outcomes. Results Nearly all clinical trials testing abiraterone in prostate cancer showed promising outcomes with 89% of studies meeting their endpoint. Our study supports abiraterone’s use in prostate cancer, its only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication to treat, with a median ORR of 20.0% and a median PSA-RR of 42.0%. However, when looking at the 3 novel indications tested, the risk-to-benefit profile was similar to that of its original approval. Even though most novel indications failed to meet their primary endpoint, the overall toxicity profile was similar to that found in prostate cancer. Conclusion Abiraterone showed an overall risk-to-benefit portfolio that supports the use of its treatment in prostate cancer. Although the primary endpoints in ovarian and breast cancer trials were not met, the use was appropriate when assessing how the mechanism of action for abiraterone could be beneficial in patients with these types of cancers.

Objective Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug.Background Creating a novel chemotherapy is costly both in time and capital spent for drug manufacturers. To regenerate what they’ve spent, drug manufacturers may attempt to repurpose their medications for new indications via clinical trials. To fully understand the risk/benefits in comparison to a drug’s efficacy, a pooled analysis must be completed.Methods We screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials of regorafenib used to treat solid cancers. Next, we extracted median progression-free survival and overall survival in months, adverse event rates and objective response rate (ORR). Studies were deemed positive, negative or indeterminate based on their pre-specified endpoints and tolerability.Results 56 clinical trials were included in our final sample, with 4960 total participants across 13 indications. Most studies (44 of 56; 78.75%) were non-blinded, and a majority were non-randomised (41 of 56; 73.21%). Trials for colorectal cancer started out as positive but became more negative over time. Cumulative risk to patients increased over time while ORR stayed consistently low.Conclusions Our findings suggest that since regorafenib’s original Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the risk profile for its original indication increased. The amount of non-randomised, single-arm trials in our sample size was concerning, indicating that higher quality research must be conducted. Our results propose that regorafenib’s efficacy and safety may be more impactful in cancers other than its FDA approvals.

Abstract Objective This study aims to evaluate published clinical trials of ramucirumab to assess the risk/benefit profile and burden over time for patients. Background The burden of oncologic drug development on patients paired with increasing clinical trial failure rates emphasizes the need for reform of drug development. Identifying and addressing patterns of excess burden can guide policy, ensure evidence‐based protections for trial participants, and improve medical decision‐making. Methods On May 25, 2023 a literature search was performed on Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials using ramucirumab as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions for cancer treatment. Authors screened titles and abstracts for potential inclusion in a masked, duplicate fashion. Following data screening, data was extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative or indeterminate. Results Ramucirumab was initially approved for gastric cancer but has since been tested in 20 cancers outside of its FDA approved indications. In our analysis of ramucirumab trials, there were a total of 10,936 participants and 10,303 adverse events reported. Gains in overall survival and progression‐free survival for patients were 1.5 and 1.2 months, respectively. FDA‐approved indications have reported more positive outcomes in comparison to off‐label indications. Conclusion We found that FDA‐approved indications for ramucirumab had better efficacy outcomes than non‐approved indications. However, a concerning number of adverse events were observed across all trials assessed. Participants in ramucirumab randomized controlled trials saw meager gains in overall survival when evaluated against a comparison group. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks associated with ramucirumab therapy given its toxicity burden and poor survival gains.