School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, USA.
Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, USA; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, USA; Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Sep;101:244-250. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.035. Epub 2018 Aug 7.
There is widespread interest in cancer basket trials. However, to date, there has been no formal analysis of all published basket trials.
We performed a systematic review to identify all published basket trials in cancer medicine. We included studies that (1) did not place restriction on tumour type and (2) used a biomarker for the basis of enrolment (3) administered at least one anti-cancer agent in prospective fashion and (4) reported responses by each tumour type included. We sought information regarding the tumour histology included and the response rate in basket trials. In addition, we used national cancer statistics to identify which tumour types have been overrepresented in basket studies (i.e. more representation in trials than their incidence would suggest) and those which are under-represented.
We identified eight articles with a combined enrolment of 1176 patients were included in our analysis, representing over 33 tumour types. Ovarian and fallopian tube cancers 221/1176 (19%), colorectal cancer 144/1176 (12%) and sarcoma 129 (11%) were the most common tumours represented, whereas renal cell cancer, seminoma, thymic carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumour and appendiceal carcinoma were the least represented with one case each. The overall response rate was 25%. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumour types (linear regression beta = 0.58, 95% confidence interval = -0.037-1.21) (slope < 1 implies under-representation, >1 over-representation).
We found that, to date, over 1100 patients have been enrolled on published basket studies. Common cancers may be underrepresented compared with rarer tumours. The overall response rate was 25%. Patients enrolling on basket trials should be counselled appropriately that although these studies are highly promising, most patients did not respond. Future targets and drugs may improve on these results.
人们对癌症篮子试验广泛关注。然而,迄今为止,尚未对所有已发表的篮子试验进行正式分析。
我们进行了系统综述,以确定所有已发表的癌症医学篮子试验。我们纳入了以下研究:(1)不限制肿瘤类型;(2)使用生物标志物作为入组依据;(3)前瞻性地使用至少一种抗癌药物;(4)按包含的每种肿瘤类型报告反应。我们寻求有关篮子试验中包含的肿瘤组织学和反应率的信息。此外,我们使用国家癌症统计数据来确定哪些肿瘤类型在篮子研究中过度代表(即试验中的代表人数多于其发病率所表明的人数),以及哪些肿瘤类型代表性不足。
我们确定了 8 篇文章,共纳入 1176 例患者,这些文章均包含在我们的分析中,涉及 33 种以上肿瘤类型。卵巢和输卵管癌 221/1176(19%)、结直肠癌 144/1176(12%)和肉瘤 129(11%)是最常见的肿瘤类型,而肾细胞癌、精原细胞瘤、胸腺癌、神经内分泌肿瘤和阑尾癌则每种仅有 1 例,代表比例最少。总体反应率为 25%。常见癌症可能与罕见肿瘤类型相比代表性不足(线性回归β=0.58,95%置信区间= -0.037-1.21)(斜率<1 表示代表性不足,>1 表示代表性过度)。
我们发现,迄今为止,已有超过 1100 例患者入组已发表的篮子研究。与罕见肿瘤相比,常见癌症可能代表性不足。总体反应率为 25%。入组篮子试验的患者应适当告知,尽管这些研究非常有前途,但大多数患者没有反应。未来的目标和药物可能会改善这些结果。