Historically, cancer medicine has avoided the problem of unequal dosing by comparing maximum-tolerated doses of intravenous regimens with proportionate dose reductions for toxicity. However, in recent years, with the development of numerous oral anticancer agents, dosing options are arbitrarily and increasingly limited by the size of pills. We contend that an underappreciated consequence of pill size is unequal dosing in comparative clinical trials and that this can have an impact on outcomes. We discuss how comparative effectiveness trials can be unbalanced and how the use of doses that are not sustainable might affect outcomes, especially marginal ones. We further argue that because of their poor tolerability and their limited dosing options, which often result in large dose adjustments in response to toxicity, the real-world clinical effectiveness of oral anticancer agents may be diminished and may not emulate results achieved in registration trials.

Prior to 2011, only 2 systemic treatments were approved for the treatment of melanoma and these had limited efficacy. In the past 4 years, 6 novel agents have received FDA approval. Herein, we will focus on 4 recently published NEJM papers reporting the results of clinical trials, comprising 4 agents targeting the MAPK pathway: the BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MEK inhibitors trametinib and cobimetenib. These have been developed in parallel with a class of immunologic mediators often referred to as "immune checkpoint inhibitors." These recent studies represent a marked acceleration of progress in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. While it was hoped that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors would significantly mitigate drug resistance, such combinations have yielded only modestly better results than monotherapy. However, these combinations were successful in reducing the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas and keratocanthomas. Therefore, combination therapies are clearly warranted. Thus far there are only limited data addressing the value of combinations of immunotherapeutic agents: a phase 1 trial of concurrent nivolumab plus ipilimumab suggested enhanced activity that may not depend on BRAF mutation status. Despite the attention and publicity given to the progress achieved in the therapy of melanoma, the majority of patients with metastatic disease still have a poor prognosis. Even novel combination regiments of BRAF and MEK inhibitors achieve complete response in only 13% of patients and a median PFS of 11.4 months in all patients. Better therapies remain desperately needed, especially for the 30-40% of patients with wild-type BRAF, for whom BRAF/MAPK inhibition offers no benefit. In the latter benefit is expected from emerging immunotherapies either singly or in combinations. The extent to which immunotherapies will add to regimens targeting BRAF remains to be determined.

Background

Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology).

Materials and methods

Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatment or intervention assessed in a discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 4-6 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results.

Results

A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trials were evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published, with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants = 1.23 [1.11-1.36], p < .001; and 1.64 [1.15-2.34], p = .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased the likelihood of publication (OR 2.37, p = .013; and 2.21, p = .01, respectively). Among nonrandomized studies, phase II trials were more likely to be published than phase I (p < .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38-1.52]; p = .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61-1.29]; p = .532).

Conclusion

This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 4-6 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.