Research methods to change clinical practice for patients with rare cancers

The Lancet Oncology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2016, Pages e70-e80

  Billingham, Lucinda ^a   Malottki, Kinga ^a   Steven, Neil ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMORBIDITY; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MERKEL CELL TUMOR; METASTASIS POTENTIAL; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT CARE; PENIS CARCINOMA; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RARE DISEASE; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SALIVARY GLAND CANCER; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY; SMALL INTESTINE CANCER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; RARE DISEASES;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SELECTION; RARE DISEASES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84959262585     PISSN: 14702045     EISSN: 14745488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00396-4     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Gatta G, van der Zwan JM, Casali PG, et al., the RARECARE working group. Rare cancers are not so rare: the rare cancer burden in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2011, 47:2493-2511.
2. Garraway LA Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31:1806-1814.
3. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P, et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 2013, 499:214-218.
4. Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O'Keefe K, Kesselheim AS Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. BMJ 2014, 349:g6802.
5. Cornu C, Kassai B, Fisch R, et al., the CRESim & Epi-CRESim Project Groups. Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013, 8:48.
6. Gupta S, Faughnan ME, Tomlinson GA, Bayoumi AM A framework for applying unfamiliar trial designs in studies of rare diseases. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1085-1094.
7. Kianifard F, Islam MZ A guide to the design and analysis of small clinical studies. Pharm Stat 2011, 10:363-368.
8. Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, et al., the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network. Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab 2009, 96:20-26.
9. Buckley BM Clinical trials of orphan medicines. Lancet 2008, 371:2051-2055.
10. Behera M, Kumar A, Soares HP, Sokol L, Djulbegovic B Evidence-based medicine for rare diseases: implications for data interpretation and clinical trial design. Cancer Control 2007, 14:160-166.
11. Lagakos SW Clinical trials and rare diseases. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:2455-2456.
12. Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J Child Neurol 2013, 28:1142-1150.
13. Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, Beresford MW Methodology of clinical trials for rare diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014, 28:247-262.
14. Van der Lee JH, Wesseling J, Tanck MWT, Offringa M Efficient ways exist to obtain the optimal sample size in clinical trials in rare diseases. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:324-330.
15. Wilcken B Rare diseases and the assessment of intervention: what sorts of clinical trials can we use?. J Inherit Metab Dis 2001, 24:291-298.
16. European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on clinical trials in small populations, (accessed Jan 14, 2015). http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003615.pdf.
17. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Rare diseases: common issues in drug development guidance for industry; draft guidance, August, 2015. (accessed Jan 14, 2015). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM458485.pdf.
18. Casali PG Do rare cancers deserve specific strategies for cancer research?. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11:506-507.
19. Gaddipati H, Liu K, Pariser A, Pazdur R Rare cancer trial design: lessons from FDA approvals. Clin Cancer Res 2012, 18:5172-5178.
20. Casali PG, Bruzzi P, Bogaerts J, Blay JY., the Rare Cancers Europe (RCE) Consensus Panel. Rare Cancers Europe (RCE) methodological recommendations for clinical studies in rare cancers: a European consensus position paper. Ann Oncol 2015, 26:300-306.
21. Keat N, Law K, Seymour M, et al. International Rare Cancers Initiative. Lancet Oncol 2013, 14:109-110.
22. Bogaerts J, Sydes MR, Keat N, et al. Clinical trial designs for rare diseases: studies developed and discussed by the International Rare Cancers Initiative. Eur J Cancer 2015, 51:271-281.
23. Mandrekar SJ, Dahlberg SE, Simon R Improving clinical trial efficiency: thinking outside the box. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2015, 35:e141-e147.
24. Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 2002, 288:358-362.
25. Royston P, Parmar MK, Qian W Novel designs for multi-arm clinical trials with survival outcomes with an application in ovarian cancer. Stat Med 2003, 22:2239-2256.
26. Wilson MK, Collyar D, Chingos DT, et al. Outcomes and endpoints in cancer trials: bridging the divide. Lancet Oncol 2015, 16:e43-e52.
27. Sleijfer S, Wagner AJ The challenge of choosing appropriate end points in single-arm phase II studies of rare diseases. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:896-898.
28. Schatzkin A, Gail M The promise and peril of surrogate end points in cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer 2002, 2:19-27.
29. Wason JM, Mander AP, Eisen TG Reducing sample sizes in two-stage phase II cancer trials by using continuous tumour shrinkage end-points. Eur J Cancer 2011, 47:983-989.
30. Chow SC, Chang M Adaptive design methods in clinical trials-a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2008, 3:11.
31. Kim ES, Herbst RS, Wistuba II, et al. The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov 2011, 1:44-53.
32. Korn EL, Freidlin B Outcome-adaptive randomization: is it useful?. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:771-776.
33. Sydes MR, Parmar MK, Mason MD, et al. Flexible trial design in practice-stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: a multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012, 13:168.
34. Berry DA Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006, 5:27-36.
35. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health evaluation 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
36. Lilford RJ, Thornton JG, Braunholtz D Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrum. BMJ 1995, 311:1621-1625.
37. Matthews JN Small clinical trials: are they all bad?. Stat Med 1995, 14:115-126.
38. Tan SB, Dear KB, Bruzzi P, Machin D Strategy for randomised clinical trials in rare cancers. BMJ 2003, 327:47-49.
39. Tan SB, Wee J, Wong HB, Machin D Can external and subjective information ever be used to reduce the size of randomised controlled trials?. Contemp Clin Trials 2008, 29:211-219.
40. Billingham L, Malottki K, Steven N Small sample sizes in clinical trials: a statistician's perspective. Clin Invest 2012, 2:655-657.
41. Parker RA, Berman NG Sample size: more than calculations. Am Stat 2003, 57:166-170.
42. Lanoy E, Engels EA Skin cancers associated with autoimmune conditions among elderly adults. Br J Cancer 2010, 103:112-114.
43. Lanoy E, Costagliola D, Engels EA Skin cancers associated with HIV infection and solid organ transplant among elderly adults. Int J Cancer 2009.
44. Kachare SD, Wong JH, Vohra NA, Zervos EE, Fitzgerald TL Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with improved survival in Merkel cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2014, 21:1624-1630.
45. Bichakjian CK, Olencki T, Alam M, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014, 12:410-424.
46. Schilsky RL, Michels DL, Kearbey AH, Yu PP, Hudis CA Building a rapid learning health care system for oncology: the regulatory framework of CancerLinQ. J Clin Oncol 2014, 32:2373-2379.
47. NHS England. The care.data programme-collecting information for the health of the nation NHS England, (accessed June 4, 2015). http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/tsd/care-data/.
48. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al., the International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group, the European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7:iii-iix. 1-173.
49. D'Agostino RB Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998, 17:2265-2281.
50. Alemayehu D, Alvir JM, Jones B, Willke RJ Statistical issues with the analysis of nonrandomized studies in comparative effectiveness research. J Manag Care Pharm 2011, 17(suppl A):S22-S26.
51. Black N Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996, 312:1215-1218.
52. Senn S n-of-1 trials. Statistical issues in drug development 2008, 287-294. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. 2nd edn.
53. Zucker DR, Ruthazer R, Schmid CH Individual (n-of-1) trials can be combined to give population comparative treatment effect estimates: methodologic considerations. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:1312-1323.
54. Menis J, Hasan B, Besse B New clinical research strategies in thoracic oncology: clinical trial design, adaptive, basket and umbrella trials, new end-points and new evaluations of response. Eur Respir Rev 2014, 23:367-378.