ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021 conference provided a high number of randomized phase III trial reports, many of which were claimed to be practice changing. Given the short time available for conference presentations, results and conclusions tend to have greatest priority with less time remaining for study background and study methodology. PURPOSE: On behalf of the ESMO Practicing Oncologists Working Group, 11 potentially practice-changing reports were selected and screened for three main questions: (i) Did the investigators provide sufficient details with regard to Patients and Methods to make the results comprehensible? (ii) Were there any reasons to consider bias? (iii) To which extent did the results presented translate to clinical benefit? RESULTS: In 2 out of 11 trials, the study design presented differed considerably from the study design described at ClinicalTrials.gov. Allocation concealment was not carried out in 6 out of 11 trials. In none of the trials reporting progression-free survival was informative censoring considered an issue. In none of the trials reporting overall survival was desirable crossover considered an issue. Defined trial outcome measures depicted at ClinicalTrials.gov, which could boost or weaken the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale score, were often lacking in the presentation. Study success was claimed in a heterogeneous manner, which was often not clearly linked to overall clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: ESMO conference presentations can inform the scientific community and catalyze further research but cannot replace the full papers in peer-reviewed journals, which are needed to estimate the thoroughness of the results, the overall impact on clinical benefit and the consequences for future treatment guidelines.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Oncologists , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research DesignABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Our previous phase-3 study (TTCC 2503) failed to show overall survival advantage of 2 induction chemotherapy (IC) regimens followed by standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) over CRT alone in patients with unresectable locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC). This study described the long-term survival of those patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term follow-up study of patients with untreated LAHNSCC assigned to IC (three cycles), with either docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF arm) or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF arm), followed by CRT, or CRT alone, included in the previous TTCC 2503 trial. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (n = 439), the median OS times were 25.4 (95% CI, 16.8-34.4), 26.2 (95% CI, 18.2-36.6) and 25.4 months (95% CI, 17.4-36.0) in the TPF-CRT, PF-CRT and CRT arms, respectively (log-rank p = 0.51). In the per-protocol population (n = 355), patients with larynx-hypopharynx primary tumors treated with IC (TPF or PF) followed by CRT had a longer median PFS than those who received CRT alone. Moreover, patients with ECOG 0 treated with IC (TPF or PF) followed by CRT had a better TTF than those with CRT alone. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of OS, PFS or TTF, according to the tumor load or affected nodes. CONCLUSION: After a long follow-up, the TTCC 2503 trial failed to show the benefit of IC-CRT in unresectable LAHNSCC regarding the primary end point. However, fit patients with ECOG 0 and primary larynx-hypopharyngeal tumors may benefit from the use of IC if administered by an experienced team. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00261703.
