ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, outcome data of a great number of clinical trials were presented. For the attending medical oncologist, it is important to structure these data in a way that facilitates a trade-off between treatment burden and benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To illustrate this, we carried out a narrative non-systematic review of 12 selected oral presentations with potential impact on future daily practice, focusing on trial methodology, possible study flaws, reported clinical benefit and implementability. RESULTS: The selected presentations encompassed 10 phase III trials, 1 randomized phase II trial and 1 phase II trial. In 7 out of 12 trials, quality of life and/or patient-reported outcomes had been evaluated. None of the trials, which reported progression-free survival (PFS) data, provided information, which could exclude informative censoring bias. In none of the trials reporting overall survival (OS) data, potential flaws due to undesirable crossover and imbalance between study groups regarding post-progression treatments were addressed. For the 11 reviewed randomized trials, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) grade achieved with the new intervention was calculated based on the presented data. The MCBS grade varied from 1 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirms the high-quality standard of current cancer research and the clinical relevance of the research questions answered. However, during presentation of PFS and/or OS data, factors known to affect PFS and OS analysis should be structurally addressed. In order to keep cancer care affordable and sustainable, it could be considered to include an ESMO-MCBS threshold in the drug appraisal process of regulatory authorities.
