Data from Impact of Broadening Trial Eligibility Criteria for Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Analysis of Select ASCO-Friends Recommendations

Le résumé fourni par la source

AbstractPurpose: Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research. Experimental Design: A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO’s CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute). Results: The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria. Conclusions: This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.