Setting the standard for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (A-PDAC) in 2010: Meta-regression and power analysis of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating gemcitabine (GEM) in combination with cisplatin (CIS), oxaliplatin (L-OHP), or capecitabine (CAP).

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4049-4049 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Sperduti ◽  
E. Bria ◽  
D. Giannarelli ◽  
M. Di Maio ◽  
A. Gelibter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Meta Regression

scholarly journals Mechanisms of drug resistance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at different levels

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiali Du ◽  
Jichun Gu ◽  
Ji Li
Keyword(s):  
Drug Resistance ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Exploitation And Exploration ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and the mortality of patients with PDAC has not significantly decreased over the last few decades. Novel strategies exhibiting promising effects in preclinical or phase I/II clinical trials are often situated in an embarrassing condition owing to the disappointing results in phase III trials. The efficacy of the current therapeutic regimens is consistently compromised by the mechanisms of drug resistance at different levels, distinctly more intractable than several other solid tumours. In this review, the main mechanisms of drug resistance clinicians and investigators are dealing with during the exploitation and exploration of the anti-tumour effects of drugs in PDAC treatment are summarized. Corresponding measures to overcome these limitations are also discussed.

Magnitude of benefit of the addition of bevacizumab (BEVA) to first-line chemotherapy (CT) for advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15021-e15021
Author(s):  
V. Vaccaro ◽  
F. Cuppone ◽  
F. Loupakis ◽  
M. Milella ◽  
P. Carlini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

e15021 Background: The monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor BEVA has recently demonstrated to improve survival for MRC patients (pts). Nevertheless, the magnitude of the provided benefit in the daily practice is still controversial. In order to quantify the benefit of adding BEVA to CT for MCRC, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Survival Hazard Ratios (HR) were extracted from prospective, randomized clinical trials (RCTs, either phase II/III) reports. HR and event-based relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (progression-free- and overall-survival, PFS/OS) and secondary outcomes (overall, partial and complete response rates, ORR/PR/CR) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number of patients needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity test and a meta-regression analysis with clinical predictors for outcomes were conducted as well. A sensitivity analysis according to the trial phase-design was accomplished. Results: Five trials (2,728 pts), 2 phase II (313 pts) and 3 phase III (2,415 pts), were gathered. No significant interaction was found in the sensitivity analysis between phase II and III, although a trend showed a better PFS results for BEVA in phase II trials (p=0.057). At the meta-regression analysis female gender and rectal primary site were significant predictors for PFS (p=0.003, p=0.005). Toxicity analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: Although concerns regarding costs and toxicities still exist, BEVA significantly improves the outcome of untreated MCRC pts. The absolute benefit provided into an unselected population for molecular features should be considered of paramount importance for advanced disease. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Drug Repurposing Opportunities in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 280
Author(s):  
Rita Rebelo ◽  
Bárbara Polónia ◽  
Lúcio Lara Santos ◽  
M. Helena Vasconcelos ◽  
Cristina P. R. Xavier
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Drug Repurposing ◽  
Metastatic Tumor ◽  
Therapeutic Options ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Clinical Indication ◽  
Novel Treatments

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is considered one of the deadliest tumors worldwide. The diagnosis is often possible only in the latter stages of the disease, with patients already presenting an advanced or metastatic tumor. It is also one of the cancers with poorest prognosis, presenting a five-year survival rate of around 5%. Treatment of PDAC is still a major challenge, with cytotoxic chemotherapy remaining the basis of systemic therapy. However, no major advances have been made recently, and therapeutic options are limited and highly toxic. Thus, novel therapeutic options are urgently needed. Drug repurposing is a strategy for the development of novel treatments using approved or investigational drugs outside the scope of the original clinical indication. Since repurposed drugs have already completed several stages of the drug development process, a broad range of data is already available. Thus, when compared with de novo drug development, drug repurposing is time-efficient, inexpensive and has less risk of failure in future clinical trials. Several repurposing candidates have been investigated in the past years for the treatment of PDAC, as single agents or in combination with conventional chemotherapy. This review gives an overview of the main drugs that have been investigated as repurposing candidates, for the potential treatment of PDAC, in preclinical studies and clinical trials.

What are the reciprocal influences of randomized clinical trials and the patient–psychiatrist relationship?

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
J. Catteau ◽  
C. Cyran ◽  
R. Bordet ◽  
C.E. Thomas ◽  
B.A. Dupuis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Antidepressant Drugs ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Reciprocal Influences

SummaryThe goal of this prospective investigation was to study the course and the quality of patient-psychiatrist relationships during phase II / phase III clinical trials of antidepressant medication prescribed for depressive disorders. All patients who participated in the clinical trials (and subsequently in this survey) signed written informed consent statements and were subject to random double blind treatment assignment. Retrospective analysis of 118 investigations was carried out, and the patients involved were questioned concerning their experiences and impressions during and after the study. Data show that the outcome of clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are not a function of pre-existing good patient-psychiatrist relationships. On the other hand, no effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship were found as a result of the experimental procedure, and it can be concluded that no detrimental effects on future patient-psychiatrist relationships were incurred.

scholarly journals NAB-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): from clinical trials to clinical practice

BMC Cancer ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinando De Vita ◽  
Jole Ventriglia ◽  
Antonio Febbraro ◽  
Maria Maddalena Laterza ◽  
Alessio Fabozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Power Analysis of Cutoff-Based Randomized Clinical Trials

1994 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph C. Cappelleri ◽  
Richard B. Darlington ◽  
William M.K. Trochim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Is Bayesian Analysis Ready for Use in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials?

Stroke ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1622-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Howard ◽  
Christopher S. Coffey ◽  
Gary R. Cutter
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bayesian Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii

Is pancreaticogastrostomy safer than pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A meta-regression analysis of randomized clinical trials

Pancreatology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Ricci ◽  
Riccardo Casadei ◽  
Giovanni Taffurelli ◽  
Carlo Alberto Pacilio ◽  
Denis Beltrami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Value of Attribution in the Interpretation of Adverse Event Data: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Investigation

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18) ◽  
pp. 3002-3007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Hillman ◽  
Sumithra J. Mandrekar ◽  
Brian Bot ◽  
Ronald P. DeMatteo ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
North Central ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Group Trial

Purpose In March 1998, Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0 introduced the collection of attribution of adverse events (AEs) to study drug. We investigate whether attribution adds value to the interpretation of AE data. Patients and Methods Patients in the placebo arm of two phase III trials—North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial 97-24-51 (carboxyamino-triazole v placebo in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer) and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z9001 (imatinib mesylate v placebo after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors)—were studied. Attribution was categorized as unrelated (not related or unlikely) and related (possible, probable, or definite). Results In total, 398 patients (84 from Trial 97-24-51 and 314 from Trial Z9001) and 7,736 AEs were included; 47% and 50% of the placebo-arm AEs, respectively, were reported as related. When the same AE was reported in the same patient on multiple visits, the attribution category changed at least once 36% and 31% of the time. AE type and sex (Trial Z9001) and AE type and performance status (Trial 97-24-51) were associated with a higher likelihood of AEs being deemed related. Conclusion Nearly 50% of AEs were reported as attributed to study drug on the placebo arm of two randomized clinical trials. These data provide strong evidence that AE attribution is difficult to determine, unreliable, and of questionable value in interpreting AE data in randomized clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document