Evaluation of the contribution of randomised cancer clinical trials evaluating agents without documented single-agent activity. Issue 5 (29th October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Foster, Jared; Freidlin, Boris; Korn, E L; Smith, Malcolm
• Is Part Of: ESMO open. Volume 5:Issue 5(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-10-29
• Subjects: drug development -- combination therapy -- clinical trials; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000871
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-7029

Abstract

Abstract : Background: With the development of targeted agents, the approach to combination cancer therapy has evolved to focus on identifying ways in which pathway inhibition by one agent may enhance the activity of other agents. In theory, this implies that under this new paradigm, agents are no longer required to show single-agent activity, as the pathway inhibited by the targeted agent may only have a therapeutic effect when given with other agents. This raises the question of the extent to which anticancer agents without single-agent activity can contribute to effective combination regimens. Patients and methods: We reviewed outcomes of randomised phase 2 combination trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program that were activated in 2008 to 2017 and noted the single-agent activity of the experimental agents. Results: Fifty-three trials were identified, and 50 had available results: 7 (14%), 15 (30%) and 28 (56%) had experimental agents with single-agent activity classified as active, inactive and indeterminate, respectively. Thirteen per cent (95% CI=1.7% to 40.5%) of trials evaluating inactive agents and 11.6% (95% CI=3.9% to 25.1%) of trials evaluating agents without known single-agent activity (pooled inactive and indeterminate) were positive, compared with 42.9% (95% CI=9.9% to 81.6%) for agents with single-agent activity. Conclusions: Incorporating agents without documented single-agent activity into treatment regimens is unlikely to produce meaningful improvements in activity unless there is compelling biological rationale. This finding has important implications for the prioritisation of anticancer agents for combination testing, and for the allocation of clinical trial resources.