Efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis
- PMID: 39368225
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115059
Efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Despite recent metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) therapeutic innovations a comprehensive synthesis of patient outcome and risk-benefit assessment of phase 1/2 trials is missing. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess efficacy, safety, and trends over time for phase 1 and 2 mCRC trials by examining clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall response rate (ORR), grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE), and discontinuation due to AE.
Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched PubMed and Embase for publications of phase 1/2 trials between 2010-2021. Trials reporting on new therapies for treatment-refractory mCRC were included.
Results: The search strategy yielded 4175 unique reports, of which 258 publications were eligible. These publications report data of 277 unique treatment arms. Overall ORR was 6 %, CBR was 27 % in phase 1 and 36 % in phase 2 trials. CBR increased from 23 % in 2010-2012 to 42 % in 2019-2021. Compared to 2010-2012, trials in 2019-2021 more often tested immunomodulators (4 % vs 23 %), included molecularly preselected populations (4 % vs 38 %) and younger patients (median age<60 44 % vs 66 %). Grade 3 + AE occurred in 35 % of patients, most frequently in trials investigating targeted treatments.
Conclusions: Treatment efficacy in phase 1/2 trials is modest but improved from 2010 to 2021. This improvement is accompanied by a shift towards testing in a younger, fitter, and more strictly molecularly preselected population, as well as an increased focus on targeted and immunotherapies.
Keywords: Clinical trials, Phase I; Clinical trials, Phase II; Colorectal neoplasms; Drug development; Drug therapy; Meta-analysis; Neoplasm metastasis.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no known conflict of interests. The following interests may be considered as potential competing interests. J.M.L.R. grants/contracts: BMS, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Cleara Biotech, HUB organoids; Board Membership: Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Biobank. M.K. grants/contracts: Bayer, BMS, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Roche, Sanofi, Personal Genome Diagnostics. M.C.M. grants/contracts: BeiGene; Consulting fees: Janssen-Cilag, GSK, CDR-life; Speakers bureaus: Janssen-Cilag, BMS, WebMD global. All grants were unrelated to the study and paid to individual’s institutions.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous