2Section of Hematology/Medical Oncology,
3Department of Internal Medicine,
© The Author(s) 2020. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Aim: To investigate the frequencies and trends of brain metastases (BMs) as exclusion criteria in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) trials.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify prospective clinical trials in patients with ES-SCLC. PubMed searches were conducted with the key words “small cell lung cancer” and “extensive”. The online archives of 20 oncology journals were also searched. Recent review articles in ES-SCLC were also investigated for additional articles. Eligible studies must have enrolled primarily ES-SCLC and been published in English. Studies involving brain/chest radiation and brain metastasis-specific trials were excluded. Studies were categorized into allowed/undefined, conditional, or complete exclusion of BM.
Results: In total, 491 published studies were identified by PubMed (240), journal websites (198), and review articles (53). Early publication year (1970-1999) and first-line/maintenance setting were associated with higher incidence of complete exclusion of cases with BMs (P < 0.0001 and 0.0233, respectively). Incidence of complete exclusion was 27% in the 1990s, and then decreased to 12% in the 2000s and 8% in the 2010s.
Conclusion: A significant number of ES-SCLC trials continues to exclude patients with BM. Future studies need to ease eligibility regarding BM according to ASCO/Friends recommendations.
Brain metastasis, small cell lung cancer, clinical trials
Despite the introduction of cancer prevention, screening, and new treatment modalities, cancer remains the leading cause of human mortality in both men and women worldwide. According to the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, more than 600,000 people die annually from cancer in the United States. To develop novel therapies and further improve outcomes, well-designed clinical trials recruit candidates in numerous clinical settings. Although they are intended to help physicians’ decision-making in future oncology patients, these trials are often restrictive in patient selection. Patients with unfavorable risk factors are not permitted to participate due to fear of safety risks, resulting in a lack of generalizability to the typical patient population.
In the real world, oncologists often face clinical scenarios that have not been addressed in previous trials. Patients in oncology clinics may not have the same clinical characteristics that are required for participation in trials, indicating potential discrepancies in patient populations between clinical trial and non-clinical trial settings. In fact, a retrospective review of lung cancer cases at a Canadian institution showed that 73% of their consecutive patients would have been trial-ineligible for their hypothetical trials with common eligibility criteria. Due to lack of data in the trials, patients may develop unexpected outcomes with newly-developed treatments or be undertreated because of the fear of unknown risk.
To address the lack of generalizability in oncology clinical trials, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research proposed to the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) that clinical trials must ease eligibility criteria and suggested re-considering several items commonly listed in exclusion criteria[3-6]. These include presence of brain metastases (BMs), history of HIV/Hepatitis B/C, minimum age, organ dysfunction, and prior and concurrent malignancies. These items have been frequently listed in exclusion criteria due to historical concerns without valid scientific analysis[3-6]. Oncology patients with any of these clinical characteristics tend to be excluded from clinical trials even though they account for a significant proportion of all cancer cases in the real world.
In this study, we focused on the presence of BMs as an exclusion criterion in prospective clinical trials of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Frequency of trial exclusion due to presence of BMs was assessed to determine a trend over several decades.
We conducted systematic screening to identify prospective clinical trials in ES-SCLC [Table 1]. The initial screening used PubMed search with key words “small cell lung cancer” and “extensive”. Twenty journals commonly publishing these studies were identified during the PubMed search: Journal of Clinical Oncology, British Journal of Cancer, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Lancet Oncology, Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, Annals of Oncology, Lung Cancer, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Journal of National Cancer Institute, Clinical Lung Cancer, Cancer, International Journal of Cancer, American Journal of Clinical Oncology, European Journal of Cancer, Annals of Internal Medicine, The Oncologist, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, and Oncotarget. Online archives of these journals were investigated for additional articles. Recently published clinical reviews about ES-SCLC were also identified and investigated for more articles[7-10].
Selection of ES-SCLC trials
|Publication in English literature|
|Publication by December 2018|
|Exclusion criteria||Including NSCLC|
|Trials specific for BMs|
|Radiation therapy as primary intervention|
|Investigation period||From January 2018 to June 2018|
|Search methods||Pubmed search|
|Online journal website|
|Citation in review articles|
Eligible studies must have enrolled primarily ES-SCLC and been published in English. Studies primarily investigating brain/chest radiation and BM-specific trials were excluded. Studies were categorized into allowed/undefined, conditional (e.g., only previously treated or asymptomatic BM are allowed), or complete exclusion of BM. Chi-squire test was used for categorical group comparison. Two-sided P-values of less than 0.05 were defined as statistically significant.
The screening for clinical trials in ES-SCLC identified 240, 198, and 53 distinct articles by PubMed, journal website archives, and review articles, respectively. Characteristics of the trials are shown in Table 2. Most of the studies are published in journals with impact factor < 10, publication year 2000 or later, non-US sites, phases other than phase III, first-line setting, non-randomized, fewer than 100 patients, performance status other than 0-1, and no age limit. Radiographic screening of BM by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) was mandated only in 32% (157 studies, data not shown). Anti-angiogenic agents were used only in 19 studies.
Characteristics of studies in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer
|Characteristics||Variables||Excluded all BM (%)||Others (%)||Total||P|
|Impact factor||< 10||43(14)||271(86)||314||0.875|
|Publication year||1970-1999||38(20)||155(80)||193||< 0.0001|
|Study line||1st +/- M||53(16)||283(84)||336|
|1st and 2nd||3(14)||18(86)||21|
|1st or M||59(16)||314(84)||373||0.027|
|Sample size||< 100||51(14)||308(86)||359||0.727|
|Age Upper Limit||Yes||19(13)||125(87)||144||0.778|
Early publication year (1970-1999) and first-line/maintenance setting were significantly associated with a higher incidence of complete exclusion of cases with BM (P < 0.0001 and 0.0233, respectively). The complete exclusion was 20% in early vs. 10% in late publication years, and 16% in first-line/maintenance vs. 8% in others. There was no correlation between the complete exclusion of BMs and other clinical characteristics including journal impact factor, region, trial phase, randomization, sample size, patient performance status, and age limit.
Studies in the 1990s had the highest incidence (27%) of complete exclusion, which decreased to 8% in the 2010s [Figure 1]. The conditional group increased from 25% in the 1970s to 34% in the 1990s and 79% in the 2010s.
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for approximately 15%-20% of all lung cancer cases, commonly presents with BMs[11-13]. Clinical trials in ES-SCLC focusing on systemic therapy often exclude patients with BMs primarily due to safety concerns; however, detailed incidence and trends in excluding BMs have not been investigated. The current study demonstrated that 8% of ES-SCLC trials in the 2010s still completely exclude patients with BM, whereas a recent analysis on non-small cell lung cancer trials at clinicaltrials.gov reported a complete exclusion rate of 14%.
ES-SCLC patients with BMs in the real-world setting do not benefit from clinical trials that do not include BM cases. New therapeutic interventions for these patients are unlikely to develop while they remain ignored by researchers. Expanding eligibility criteria to include patients with BMs would provide benefits in several aspects. In a population with a high incidence of BMs such as ES-SCLC, efficacy and safety effects unique to patients with BMs may exist. If the efficacy and safety of an investigational agent is assessed at an early phase, late phase studies may enroll patients to assess central nervous system (CNS) penetration along with related efficacy and safety. A successful example is a phase III trial comparing alectinib vs. crizotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer where alectinib demonstrated a CNS response rate of 81% in a population with 40% BM at baseline. ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research strongly recommend investigation in patients with BMs in the setting of prospective trials rather than relying on post-marketing experience. They state that previously treated and radiographically stable BM cases for at least four weeks should be included in prospective trials of all phases, whereas active/progressive BMs may require a study-to-study approach. A group from the FDA supports their recommendation by suggesting exclusion of only those who are symptomatic or are taking medications with known drug interactions.
Current staging methods of SCLC includes CT scans of chest/abdomen/pelvis, positron emission tomography scan, mediastinal staging procedures via bronchoscopy, and MRI of the brain. Lesions in the CNS have been previously assessed only clinically in early ages, while CT of the head came of use in the 1980s-early 1990s. With the now more recent use of MRI, more asymptomatic BM cases are presumably detected, likely explaining the increase of the conditional group as commented above. However, radiographic screening of BM was mandated only in 32% of studies overall, and 23% of studies published in the 2010s (data not shown). Changes in the management of BMs may also explain the trend over the decades. As stereotactic radiosurgery became available for small CNS lesions, more cases were identified that were previously treated with radiation therapy. In fact, the cases in the conditional group have grown over the decades [Table 2]. They also include asymptomatic cases, those previously treated with radiation or surgery, and those in stable condition without the need for high dose steroids.
We are aware that removing restrictions in eligibility criteria may not necessarily result in rapid increases in enrollment of the previously-excluded population. For instance, a recent trial in extensive-stage SCLC that allowed the presence of BMs accrued a very limited number of patients. Attitudes of investigators will hopefully change as ASCO/Friends recommendations become more appreciated in the next several years.
We acknowledge limitations in this study. With a retrospective search, there might be studies not covered by our search strategy. Studies not available in English publication were excluded, indicating potential publication bias. The articles in the earlier years had limited space to provide information such as detailed eligibility criteria, whereas recent articles can be more informative with online supplemental datasets. Information regarding eligibility of patients with leptomeningeal metastases were not available in most studies. Few agents with specific concerns on CNS disease such as anti-angiogenesis drugs have been tested in a limited number of trials. These potential biases may need to be considered for the interpretation of this study.
In conclusion, a significant number of ES-SCLC trials continue to exclude patients with BM, although conditional allowance has increased over the decades. Future studies need to further ease eligibility regarding BM according to ASCO/Friends recommendations.
We thank the Parkview Research Center for administrative support.Authors’ contributions
Substantial contributions to conception and design of the study and performed data analysis and interpretation: Komiya T
Data acquisition, as well as provided administrative, technical, and material support: Komiya T
Manuscript writing: Komiya T, Chaaya G, Deshotels L, Powell E, Guddati AKAvailability of data and materials
List of clinical trials as primary data source can be found as supplemental information.Financial support and sponsorship
None.Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.Consent for publication
© The Author(s) 2020.
1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Cancer stat facts: cancer of any site. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html [Last accessed on 19 Feb 2020].
2. Al-Baimani K, Jonker H, Zhang T, Goss GD, Laurie SA, et al. Are clinical trial eligibility criteria an accurate reflection of a real-world population of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients? Curr Oncol 2018;25:e291-7.DOIPubMedPMC
3. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Two cancer research organizations submit recommendations to FDA aimed at reducing barriers to clinical trial participation. Available from: https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/two-cancer-research-organizations-submit-recommendations-fda [Last accessed on 19 Feb 2020].
4. Lin NU, Prowell T, Tan AR, Kozak M, Rosen O, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the american society of clinical oncology-friends of cancer research brain metastases working group. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3760-73.DOIPubMed
5. Uldrick TS, Ison G, Rudek MA, Noy A, Schwartz K, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the american society of clinical oncology-friends of cancer research HIV working group. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3774-80.DOIPubMedPMC
6. Lichtman SM, Harvey RD, Damiette Smit MA, Rahman A, Thompson MA, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the american society of clinical oncology-friends of cancer research organ dysfunction, prior or concurrent malignancy, and comorbidities working group. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3753-9.DOIPubMed
7. Chute JP, Chen T, Feigal E, Simon R, Johnson BE. Twenty years of Phase III trials for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: perceptible progress. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1794-801.DOIPubMed
8. Chen TT, Chute JP, Feigal E, Johnson BE, Simon R. A model to select chemotherapy regimens for Phase III trials for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1601-7.DOIPubMed
9. Oze I, Hotta K, Kiura K, Ochi N, Takigawa N, et al. Twenty-seven years of Phase III trials for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: disappointing results. PLoS One 2009;4:e7835.DOIPubMedPMC
10. Lally BE, Urbanic JJ, Blackstock AW, Miller AA, Perry MC. Small cell lung cancer: have we made any progress over the last 25 years? Oncologist 2007;12:1096-104.DOIPubMed
11. Small cell Lung Cancer. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Version I.2019. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sclc.pdf [last accessed on 19 Feb 2020].
12. Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, Gadgeel S, Ahn JS, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:829-38.DOIPubMed
13. Beaver JA, Ison G, Pazdur R. Reevaluating eligibility criteria - balancing patient protection and participation in oncology trials. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1504-5.DOIPubMed
14. McCoach CE, Berge EM, Lu X, Barón AE, Camidge DR. A brief report of the status of central nervous system metastasis enrollment criteria for advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: a review of the ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:407-13.DOIPubMed
15. Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A, Havel L, Krzakowski M, et al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2220-9.DOIPubMed
Xiao-Dan Shi et al., Neuroimmunology and Neuroinflammation, 2020
Carmelina Cristina Zirafa et al., Mini-invasive Surgery, 2020
Barbara Rath et al., Cancer Drug Resistance, 2020
Sara Ricciardi et al., Mini-invasive Surgery, 2020
Mark Bowling et al., Cancer Drug Resistance, 2019
Gerhard Hamilton et al., Cancer Drug Resistance, 2019
Ann Vander Borght et al., Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment, 2019
Jillian Wilhelmina Paulina Bracht et al., Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment, 2019
Nele Van Der Steen et al., Cancer Drug Resistance, 2018
Jiaxin Niu et al., Neuroimmunology and Neuroinflammation, 2018