Dennis Brody, Bratten Chance, Hughes Griffin K, Peña Andriana M, McIntire Ryan, Ladd Chase, Gardner Brooke, Nowlin William, Livingston Reagan, Tuia Jordan, Haslam Alyson, Prasad Vinay, Vassar Matt
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Internal Medicine, University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine Departments & Residency Programs, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
BMJ Oncol. 2024 Mar 19;3(1):e000229. doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000229. eCollection 2024.
Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本研究的目的是分析所有使用瑞戈非尼的肿瘤学临床试验,以建立该药物完整的风险/获益概况。
研发一种新型化疗药物对于制药商而言,在时间和资金方面成本高昂。为了收回投入成本,制药商可能会尝试通过临床试验将其药物用于新的适应症。为了全面了解与药物疗效相比的风险/获益情况,必须完成汇总分析。
我们在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane(CENTRAL)和ClinicalTrials.gov上筛选了使用瑞戈非尼治疗实体癌的试验。接下来,我们提取了以月为单位的中位无进展生存期和总生存期、不良事件发生率和客观缓解率(ORR)。根据预先设定的终点和耐受性,将研究分为阳性、阴性或不确定。
我们的最终样本纳入了56项临床试验,涉及13种适应症的4960名参与者。大多数研究(56项中的44项;78.75%)是非盲法的,并且大多数是非随机的(56项中的41项;73.21%)。结直肠癌试验最初呈阳性,但随着时间推移变得更加阴性。随着时间的推移,患者的累积风险增加,而ORR一直很低。
我们的研究结果表明,自瑞戈非尼最初获得美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准以来,其最初适应症的风险概况有所增加。我们样本量中的非随机单臂试验数量令人担忧,这表明必须开展更高质量的研究。我们的结果表明,瑞戈非尼的疗效和安全性在FDA批准之外的癌症中可能更具影响力。