Premium
Evolving landscape and academic attitudes toward the controversies of global immuno‐oncology trials
Author(s) -
Xu Cheng,
Zhang Shu,
Zhang Yuan,
Tang SiQi,
Fang XueLiang,
Zhu GuangLi,
Peng Liang,
Liu JinQi,
Mao YanPing,
Tang LingLong,
Liu Qing,
Lin AiHua,
Sun Ying,
Ma Jun
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.33503
Subject(s) - clinical trial , medicine , family medicine , oncology
This cross‐sectional and longitudinal descriptive analysis aimed to track the evolving landscape of global immuno‐oncology (IO) trials and provide insight into the resolution of IO‐related controversies. Clinical trials (n = 4510) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007 to 2019 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer (ACT), cancer vaccines and immune modulators were included. Most of IO trials are Phase 2 and focus on ICIs and multiple IO therapies. The United States leads global IO research, with stable growth and the best methodological quality. Mainland China ranks first in the number of ACT trials but has the lowest article publication rate (6.2%). A multiple‐arm comparative design is often adopted in multiple IO therapies trials (44.0%). Trials studying ICIs and multiple IO therapies are likely to use early registration (80.0% and 86.6%) and stringent corticosteroid‐/infection‐related criteria. Hospitals have provided the most extensive and strongest support for all IO categories. Big pharma prefers to fund Phase 3‐4 ICI trials (6.98%), while small pharma has a wider sponsorship favoring Phase 1‐2 trials. The “partial‐use‐of‐corticosteroids” strategy is generally well accepted in ICI trials with a definitive trend (32.5%; P < .001) but is associated with the poor dissemination of results ( P ≤ .020), while the complete disclosure and standardization of dose/timing limits are still lacking. Disparities in design features and dissemination of results are widespread in IO trials and are modulated by IO category, cancer type and sponsor. We propose policy reforms to redefine the timely publication of IO trials and standardize the resolution of corticosteroid‐/infection‐related issues.