Heterogeneity in subgroup reporting across clinical trials assessing systemic therapies in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: A report from a living systematic review.

M Muhammad Umair Anjum (The Wright Center for GME, Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States) S Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi (Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ) K Kaneez Zahra Rubab Khakwani (University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ) A Ammad Raina (Midwestern University, AZCOM, Glendale, AZ) S Salman Ayub Jajja (NYMC-LANDMARK MEDICAL CENTER, RI, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, United States) M Muhammad Ali Khan B Bryan Rumble (American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA) R Rohan Garje (3Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, United States) Y Yousef Zakharia (Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Phoenix Arizona USA) P Parminder Singh (Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ) R Rahul Atul Parikh (University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS) A Alan Haruo Bryce (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) I Irbaz Bin Riaz (Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA)

Abstract

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 270-270
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (13)

M

Muhammad Umair Anjum

The Wright Center for GME, Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States

S

Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi

Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

K

Kaneez Zahra Rubab Khakwani

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

A

Ammad Raina

Midwestern University, AZCOM, Glendale, AZ

S

Salman Ayub Jajja

NYMC-LANDMARK MEDICAL CENTER, RI, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, United States

M

Muhammad Ali Khan

B

Bryan Rumble

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA

R

Rohan Garje

3Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, United States

Y

Yousef Zakharia

Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Phoenix Arizona USA

P

Parminder Singh

Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ

R

Rahul Atul Parikh

University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS

A

Alan Haruo Bryce

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

I

Irbaz Bin Riaz

Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA