[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Forest Plot of Overall Survival Hazard Ratio (HRs) for the 27 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials With an HR of More Than 1 Included in the Study
Forest Plot of Overall Survival Hazard Ratio (HRs) for the 27 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials With an HR of More Than 1 Included in the Study

The size of each box represents the weight by random-effects analysis of the contribution of each study to the weight of each sample in the meta-analysis. The vertical dashed line indicates the point of summary HR and the diamond indicates the 95% CI for the summary hazard ratio. Values less than 1 (and symbols to the left of HR = 1) reflect protective effects of treatment and values more than 1 (symbols to the right of HR = 1) reflect detrimental effects of treatment on survival.

1.
Wong  CH, Siah  KW, Lo  AW.  Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters.  Biostatistics. 2019;20(2):273-286. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Examination of clinical trial costs and barriers for drug development. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/examination-clinical-trial-costs-and-barriers-drug-development. Published July 25, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2019.
3.
Institute of Medicine Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation. 6, Clinical trials in cancer. In: Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50895/. Published 2010. Accessed February 20, 2019.
4.
US Food and Drug Administration. Inside clinical trials: testing medical products in people. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143531.htm. Updated November 4, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2019.
5.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Good review practice: clinical review of investigational new drug applications. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM377108.pdf. Published December 2013. Accessed March 15, 2019.
6.
Gyawali  B, Addeo  A.  Negative phase 3 randomized controlled trials: why cancer drugs fail the last barrier?  Int J Cancer. 2018;143(8):2079-2081. doi:10.1002/ijc.31583PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Prasad  V, McCabe  C, Mailankody  S.  Low-value approvals and high prices might incentivize ineffective drug development.  Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(7):399-400. doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0030-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Murad  MH, Wang  Z.  Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.  Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4):139-142. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Edelman  MJ, Wang  X, Hodgson  L,  et al; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.  Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of celecoxib in addition to standard chemotherapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression: CALGB 30801 (Alliance).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2184-2192. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.3743PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Jänne  PA, van den Heuvel  MM, Barlesi  F,  et al.  Selumetinib plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone and progression-free survival in patients with KRAS-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer: The SELECT-1 randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(18):1844-1853. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3438PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Hussain  M, Tangen  CM, Thompson  IM  Jr,  et al.  Phase III intergroup trial of adjuvant androgen deprivation with or without mitoxantrone plus prednisone in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: SWOG S9921.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15):1498-1504. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.4126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Noronha  V, Joshi  A, Patil  VM,  et al.  Once-a-week versus once-every-3-weeks cisplatin chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a phase III randomized noninferiority trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1064-1072. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Aparicio  T, Bennouna  J, Le Malicot  K,  et al.  Final results of PRODIGE 9, a randomized phase III comparing no treatment to bevacizumab maintenance during chemotherapy-free intervals in metastatic colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15_suppl):3531. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.3531Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Mok  TSK, Kim  S-W, Wu  Y-L,  et al.  Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation–positive non–small-cell lung cancer resistant to first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): overall survival and biomarker analyses.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(36):4027-4034. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.9250PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Oudard  S, Fizazi  K, Sengeløv  L,  et al.  Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial-FIRSTANA.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(28):3189-3197. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1068PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Jalal  SI, Lavin  P, Lo  G, Lebel  F, Einhorn  L.  Carboplatin and etoposide with or without palifosfamide in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter, adaptive, randomized phase III study (MATISSE).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(23):2619-2623. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7454PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Ejlertsen  B, Tuxen  MK, Jakobsen  EH,  et al.  Adjuvant cyclophosphamide and docetaxel with or without epirubicin for early TOP2A-normal breast cancer: DBCG 07-READ, an open-label, phase III, randomized trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(23):2639-2646. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Yao  JC, Guthrie  KA, Moran  C,  et al.  Phase III prospective randomized comparison trial of depot octreotide plus interferon alfa-2b versus depot octreotide plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced carcinoid tumors: SWOG S0518.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1695-1703. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4072PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Agarwala  SS, Lee  SJ, Yip  W,  et al.  Phase III randomized study of 4 weeks of high-dose interferon-α-2b in stage T2bNO, T3a-bNO, T4a-bNO, and T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic) melanoma: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E1697).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(8):885-892. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.2951PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Spigel  DR, Edelman  MJ, O’Byrne  K,  et al.  Results from the phase III randomized trial of onartuzumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib in previously treated stage IIIB or IV non–small-cell lung cancer: METLung.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(4):412-420. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Beer  TM, Kwon  ED, Drake  CG,  et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial of ipilimumab versus placebo in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with metastatic chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(1):40-47. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.1584PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Cats  A, Jansen  EPM, van Grieken  NCT,  et al; CRITICS Investigators.  Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):616-628. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30132-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Vilgrain  V, Pereira  H, Assenat  E,  et al; SARAH Trial Group.  Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1624-1636. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30683-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Catenacci  DVT, Tebbutt  NC, Davidenko  I,  et al.  Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1467-1482. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30566-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Weller  M, Butowski  N, Tran  DD,  et al; ACT IV Trial Investigators.  Rindopepimut with temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed, EGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma (ACT IV): a randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1373-1385. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30517-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Tap  WD, Papai  Z, Van Tine  BA,  et al.  Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1089-1103. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30381-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Rini  BI, Stenzl  A, Zdrojowy  R,  et al.  IMA901, a multipeptide cancer vaccine, plus sunitinib versus sunitinib alone, as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMPRINT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1599-1611. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30408-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Kerr  RS, Love  S, Segelov  E,  et al.  Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1543-1557. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30172-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Eichhorst  B, Fink  A-M, Bahlo  J,  et al; International Group of Investigators; German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).  First-line chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL10): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):928-942. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30051-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Vansteenkiste  JF, Cho  BC, Vanakesa  T,  et al.  Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):822-835. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00099-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Ryan  CW, Merimsky  O, Agulnik  M,  et al.  PICASSO III: a phase III, placebo-controlled study of doxorubicin with or without palifosfamide in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3898-3905. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6684PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kelly  K, Altorki  NK, Eberhardt  WEE,  et al.  Adjuvant erlotinib versus placebo in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small-cell lung cancer (RADIANT): a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(34):4007-4014. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.61.8918PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Crump  M, Leppä  S, Fayad  L,  et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of enzastaurin versus placebo in patients achieving remission after first-line therapy for high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2484-2492. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7171PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Powles  T, Huddart  RA, Elliott  T,  et al.  Phase III, double-blind, randomized trial that compared maintenance lapatinib versus placebo after first-line chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 1/2-positive metastatic bladder cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(1):48-55. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.66.3468PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Cameron  D, Morden  JP, Canney  P,  et al; TACT2 Investigators.  Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(7):929-945. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30404-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Gronchi  A, Ferrari  S, Quagliuolo  V,  et al.  Histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas (ISG-STS 1001): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):e301].  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):812-822. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30334-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Gianni  L, Mansutti  M, Anton  A,  et al.  Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer—the evaluating treatment with neoadjuvant abraxane (etna) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(3):302-308. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Siu  LL, Waldron  JN, Chen  BE,  et al.  Effect of standard radiotherapy with cisplatin vs accelerated radiotherapy with panitumumab in locoregionally advanced squamous cell head and neck carcinoma: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):220-226. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4510PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Shah  MA, Bang  YJ, Lordick  F,  et al.  Effect of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without onartuzumab in HER2-negative, MET-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: the METGastric randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):620-627. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5580PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Chamie  K, Donin  NM, Klöpfer  P,  et al.  Adjuvant weekly girentuximab following nephrectomy for high-risk renal cell carcinoma: the ARISER randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(7):913-920. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Suntharalingam  M, Winter  K, Ilson  D,  et al.  Effect of the addition of cetuximab to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with esophageal cancer: the NRG Oncology RTOG 0436 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(11):1520-1528. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Venook  AP, Niedzwiecki  D, Lenz  HJ,  et al.  Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(23):2392-2401. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7105PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Powles  T, Durán  I, van der Heijden  MS,  et al.  Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2018;391(10122):748-757. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33297-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Porceddu  SV, Bressel  M, Poulsen  MG,  et al.  Postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the randomized phase III TROG 05.01 trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(13):1275-1283. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0941PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Carvajal  RD, Piperno-Neumann  S, Kapiteijn  E,  et al.  Selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial (SUMIT).  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(12):1232-1239. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.74.1090PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Larkin  J, Minor  D, D’Angelo  S,  et al.  Overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab versus investigator’s choice chemotherapy in CheckMate 037: a randomized, controlled, open-label phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4):383-390. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.8023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Govindan  R, Szczesna  A, Ahn  MJ,  et al.  Phase III trial of ipilimumab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous non–small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(30):3449-3457. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7629PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Sinn  M, Bahra  M, Liersch  T,  et al.  CONKO-005: adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine alone in patients after R0 resection of pancreatic cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(29):3330-3337. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Lee  JH, Kim  H, Joo  YD,  et al; Cooperative Study Group A for Hematology.  Prospective randomized comparison of idarubicin and high-dose daunorubicin in induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(24):2754-2763. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.8618PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Chanan-Khan  A, Cramer  P, Demirkan  F,  et al; HELIOS Investigators.  Ibrutinib combined with bendamustine and rituximab compared with placebo, bendamustine, and rituximab for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (HELIOS): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):200-211. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00465-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Tiseo  M, Boni  L, Ambrosio  F,  et al.  Italian, multicenter, phase III, randomized study of cisplatin plus etoposide with or without bevacizumab as first-line treatment in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: the GOIRC-AIFA FARM6PMFJM trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(12):1281-1287. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4844PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Smith  I, Yardley  D, Burris  H,  et al.  Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-positive early breast cancer: final results of the randomized phase III Femara versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1041-1048. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2871PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
van Imhoff  GW, McMillan  A, Matasar  MJ,  et al.  Ofatumumab versus rituximab salvage chemoimmunotherapy in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the ORCHARRD study.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(5):544-551. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.0198PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Gregorc  V, Gaafar  RM, Favaretto  A,  et al.  NGR-hTNF in combination with best investigator choice in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (NGR015): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):799-811. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30193-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Rimassa  L, Assenat  E, Peck-Radosavljevic  M,  et al.  Tivantinib for second-line treatment of MET-high, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (METIV-HCC): a final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):682-693. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30146-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
De Placido  S, Gallo  C, De Laurentiis  M,  et al; GIM Investigators.  Adjuvant anastrozole versus exemestane versus letrozole, upfront or after 2 years of tamoxifen, in endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (FATA-GIM3): a randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):474-485. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30116-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Loibl  S, O’Shaughnessy  J, Untch  M,  et al.  Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497-509. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Maio  M, Lewis  K, Demidov  L,  et al; BRIM8 Investigators.  Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):510-520. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30106-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
de Boer  SM, Powell  ME, Mileshkin  L,  et al; PORTEC study group.  Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):295-309. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30079-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Herbst  RS, Redman  MW, Kim  ES,  et al.  Cetuximab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab versus carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in advanced NSCLC (SWOG S0819): a randomised, phase 3 study.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):101-114. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30694-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Wakelee  HA, Dahlberg  SE, Keller  SM,  et al; ECOG-ACRIN.  Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1610-1623. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30691-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Bang  YJ, Xu  RH, Chin  K,  et al.  Olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have progressed following first-line therapy (GOLD): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1637-1651. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30682-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Tjan-Heijnen  VCG, van Hellemond  IEG, Peer  PGM,  et al; Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group (BOOG) for the DATA Investigators.  Extended adjuvant aromatase inhibition after sequential endocrine therapy (DATA): a randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):e642].  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1502-1511. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30600-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Beer  TM, Hotte  SJ, Saad  F,  et al.  Custirsen (OGX-011) combined with cabazitaxel and prednisone versus cabazitaxel and prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (AFFINITY): a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1532-1542. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30605-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Alderson  D, Cunningham  D, Nankivell  M,  et al.  Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1249-1260. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30447-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Chi  KN, Higano  CS, Blumenstein  B,  et al.  Custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (SYNERGY trial): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):473-485. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30168-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Piperno-Neumann  S, Le Deley  MC, Rédini  F,  et al; Sarcoma Group of UNICANCER; French Society of Pediatric Oncology (SFCE); French Sarcoma Group (GSF-GETO).  Zoledronate in combination with chemotherapy and surgery to treat osteosarcoma (OS2006): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1070-1080. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30096-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Hecht  JR, Bang  YJ, Qin  SK,  et al.  Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced or metastatic gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: TRIO-013/LOGiC—a randomized phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):443-451. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.6598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Piccart-Gebhart  M, Holmes  E, Baselga  J,  et al.  Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1034-1042. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.1797PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Lipton  JH, Chuah  C, Guerci-Bresler  A,  et al; EPIC Investigators.  Ponatinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):612-621. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00080-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Garcia-Manero  G, Fenaux  P, Al-Kali  A,  et al; ONTIME Study Investigators.  Rigosertib versus best supportive care for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of hypomethylating drugs (ONTIME): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(4):496-508. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00009-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Reck  M, Luft  A, Szczesna  A,  et al.  Phase III randomized trial of ipilimumab plus etoposide and platinum versus placebo plus etoposide and platinum in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(31):3740-3748. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6601PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Smith  M, De Bono  J, Sternberg  C,  et al.  Phase III study of cabozantinib in previously treated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: COMET-1.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(25):3005-3013. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.5597PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Kurzeder  C, Bover  I, Marmé  F,  et al.  Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial evaluating pertuzumab combined with chemotherapy for low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 mRNA-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PENELOPE).  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2516-2525. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.66.0787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Vergote  I, Armstrong  D, Scambia  G,  et al.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study to assess efficacy and safety of weekly farletuzumab in combination with carboplatin and taxane in patients with ovarian cancer in first platinum-sensitive relapse.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(19):2271-2278. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2596PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Gormley  NJ, Pazdur  R.  Immunotherapy combinations in multiple myeloma—known unknowns.  N Engl J Med. 2018;379(19):1791-1795. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1803602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 3,816
    Original Investigation
    Oncology
    May 10, 2019

    Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    • 2Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 3Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 4Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Department of Oncology and Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e193684. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3684
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  Does an association exist between the sponsorship and conduct of phase 3 randomized clinical trials for cancer drugs despite negative or absent phase 2 trials for the drug, and does an association exist for overall patient survival and such phase 3 trials?

    Findings  This analysis of 67 studies found that both industry and academia conducted negative phase 3 trials of cancer drugs. No association was found between trial sponsorship and lack of a positive phase 2 trial; there was no association with patient overall survival, although the survival hazard ratio was greater than 1 for 37% of such trials.

    Meaning  Phase 3 trials conducted without supporting phase 2 trial evidence risks loss of resources owing to trial failure and may be associated with decreased patient survival.

    Abstract

    Importance  Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.

    Objective  To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimental arm of such phase 3 trials.

    Data Sources  Articles in the Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology published between January 2016 and June 2018 were searched.

    Study Selection  Phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that failed to improve the primary end point were selected and any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial was selected without any date or journal restrictions.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  Percentages of negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that lacked any phase 2 evidence, had a negative phase 2 trial, or had a positive phase 2 study were extracted. Associations were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the overall survival of patients enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs were estimated using a random-effects model.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Negative phase 3 RCTs with a lack of a phase 2 trial or the presence of a negative phase 2 trial and overall survival of enrolled patients in the phase 3 RCTs.

    Results  In this meta-epidemiological study, 67 negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer drugs, which included 64 600 patients, met the criteria of being sponsored by industry or academic groups, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic. A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 of these trials (42%). Of 29 trials (43%) with a phase 2 trial available, 8 trials (28%) failed to meet their primary end points and 5 of those were industry sponsored. There was no association with overall survival for patients participating in these negative phase 3 RCTs (pooled hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). When the pooled analysis was limited to the 27 RCTs with a hazard ratio above 1.00, the overall pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16). No association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and trial sponsorship was found using the Fisher exact test.

    Conclusions and Relevance  More than 40% of the negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology published in these 5 journals were conducted without a supporting phase 2 trial and were sponsored by both academia and industry. Running such trials not only may risk loss of resources owing to a failed trial but also may be associated with decreased patient survival. Further research and regulations in this area appear warranted.

    Introduction

    Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the final barrier in establishing the efficacy of cancer drugs. One study estimates that only 3.4% of cancer drugs being evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most (35.5%) failing in the phase 3 stage when all indications are considered.1 For lead indications only, the numbers look better but are still disappointing, with 11.4% probability of success overall and 48.5% probability of success at the phase 3 stage of development. Phase 3 RCTs usually involve more patients and resources than earlier phases and are costly undertakings. According to a 2014 report, the cost of a cancer drug trial was $22.1 million, $11.2 million, and $4.5 million, for a phase 3, phase 2, and phase 1 trial, respectively.2 Thus, a drug failing the phase 3 trial (negative phase 3 trial) is an undesirable outcome, even from an economic point of view.

    However, the larger concern is the effect on human resources. First, patient resources for trial enrollment are scarce given that only 3% of patients with cancer in the United States participate in trials and that nearly 60% of phase 3 trials fail to achieve minimum patient enrollment.3 Second, a trial involves significant investment of time and logistics from health care professionals and patients. Third, a failed phase 3 trial also means unmet patient expectations. Thus, although negative RCTs can provide us with important knowledge for future research and patient care, precautions can be taken to minimize the frequency of negative RCTs, especially if they can be avoided. The US Food and Drug Administration resource “Information for Consumers (Drugs)” states that “if the phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective—and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease—the drug moves to phase 3.”4 Another document on the clinical review of investigational new drug applications also states that a phase 2 trial review is conducted on completion before initiation of phase 3 trials, during which questions such as whether sufficient data are available to plan a phase 3 program are asked.5 However, in a previous study, our group discovered that less than 20% of the negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer had a supportive phase 2 trial.6 One hypothesis for such a practice is that it is financially lucrative for the industry to continue to test compounds that have low probability of success in a phase 3 trial because even a chance finding of a positive outcome will offset all associated costs.7 However, associations of sponsors of such negative phase 3 RCTs with phase 2 trial outcomes or the association of such negative phase 3 RCTs on patient survival has not been studied systematically to our knowledge.

    In the present study, using a larger data set of negative phase 3 RCTs, we investigated whether an association existed between the sponsorship of negative phase 3 RCTs and the lack of supportive prior phase 2 trial evidence. We also studied what proportion of the industry-sponsored negative phase 3 RCTs had a history of the experimental drug being acquired or licensed from a small pharmaceutical company (defined as having a market capitalization of less than $2 billion). We hypothesized that such an arrangement might motivate the sponsor to pursue a phase 3 RCT to recoup the costs of the investment. Finally, we investigated whether there was an association with overall survival (OS) among patients who were enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs.

    Methods

    This study was conducted based on modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies.8 We searched the top oncology journals based on their impact factor (Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology) and their parent journals (Lancet and JAMA) between January 2016 and June 2018 for any negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs. We excluded the RCTs that did not involve a cancer drug in any arm, such as RCTs of radiotherapies or surgical procedures in both the arms. We extracted the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI for OS for each of the included trials, where available. We also categorized the sponsors of these negative phase 3 RCTs into academic (cooperative groups) or industry based on the posted ClinicalTrials.gov registration information. We then searched the literature and meeting abstracts for any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial. We categorized these findings into yes, no, and not applicable (NA). Not applicable was applied to drugs that had already been approved for later lines of therapy or in an advanced setting but the phase 3 RCT tested the drug in an earlier or curative setting. For those trials categorized as yes for any prior phase 2 trial, we categorized the outcomes of the phase 2 trials into positive, negative, or inconclusive based on whether the primary end point of the phase 2 trial was met, unmet, or unstated, respectively. Finally, for industry-sponsored trials, to find out if the drug was purchased or licensed from a small pharmaceutical company (defined as having a market capitalization of less than $2 billion), we used search terms in Google (eg, the name of the small pharmaceutical company, the drug or compound name, and terms such as purchase, acquired, bought, licensed, merger, sells, royalties, or option) and then reviewed the news article or press release for details, if any, regarding a transaction or business arrangement or deal with another pharmaceutical company or entity. All study and data extractions as well as categorizations were made by 2 of us (A.A. and G.W.) and rechecked by the third author (B.G.). Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus among the 3 authors.

    Statistical Analysis

    The associations of availability and of outcomes of phase 2 trials with sponsorship of negative phase 3 trials were assessed using the Fisher exact test. We also conducted a pooled analysis using a random-effects model to estimate the summary HR for OS across the negative trials. A random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity across the trials. All analyses were conducted in Stata, version 15 (StataCorp), and a 2-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    We found 67 negative phase 3 RCTs,9-75 which included 64 600 patients, that met our criteria for inclusion, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic (eTable in the Supplement).9-33 A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 (42%) of these negative phase 3 RCTs, it was available for 29 (43%) of them, and it was not applicable for 10 (15%) of them. Excluding the 10 nonapplicable trials, the availability of a phase 2 trial was not associated with negative phase 3 trial sponsorship (P > .99, assessed using the Fisher exact test). Of the 29 trials in which a phase 2 trial was available, 8 trials (28%; 14% of all 57 trials) failed to meet the primary end point, whereas the phase 2 trial was inconclusive in 5 cases (17%). The phase 2 trial met its primary end point and was considered positive in 16 trials (55%, or 28% of 57 trials). There was no association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and phase 3 trial sponsorship (P > .99, assessed using the Fisher exact test).

    Of the 8 RCTs that were conducted despite a negative phase 2 trial, 5 were industry sponsored. Two of the 3 academic phase 3 RCTs were conducted despite a negative phase 2 trial because the phase 2 trial showed beneficial effects in a subgroup of biomarker-positive patients. One was the Alliance CALGB 30801 trial of celecoxib in non–small cell lung cancer with cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression that was conducted despite a negative phase 2 trial because cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression was supposed to be a predictive biomarker.9 The other was the RCT of lapatinib in bladder cancer, which was also tested in a biomarker-selected population (ERBB1/2 [formerly HER1/2] positive) in phase 3, despite a negative phase 2 trial in an unselected population.34 Of the 5 industry-sponsored trials that were conducted despite a negative phase 2 trial, 4 trials were associated with purchase or licensure of the molecule from a small pharmaceutical company.

    Of the 67 RCTs, 59 had OS HR and CI data available. When pooled using a random-effects model, the patients participating in these trials were not associated with poorer OS (pooled HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02) with no subgroup differences by trial sponsorship or by phase 2 trial results. However, the HR was greater than 1.00 in 27 RCTs (46%). When the pooled analysis was limited to these 27 RCTs,9-33,35,36 the overall pooled HR for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16) (Figure).

    Discussion

    Of the negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs, 42% did not have phase 2 trial evidence and only 28% had a positive phase 2 trial. Nearly 14% of negative phase 3 RCTs were conducted despite a negative phase 2 trial. The availability of a phase 2 trial or whether or not the phase 2 trial was positive was not associated with trial sponsorship, but of the 5 industry-sponsored negative phase 3 RCTs, 4 were associated with drug purchase or licensure from a small pharmaceutical company. Patients who were enrolled in the negative phase 3 RCTs were not associated with poorer OS although when limited to 46% of negative phase 3 RCTs reporting an HR greater than 1.00, the pooled HR showed a significant increase in mortality among the participants randomized to the experimental arm of the trials.

    There are several hypotheses as to why a cancer drug may be tested in a phase 3 RCT despite having no or even negative phase 2 trial evidence. Among industry-sponsored trials, we found that acquisition of the investigational drug from small pharmaceutical companies could be one factor. Financial milestones among the small pharmaceutical companies to move a compound from phase 2 to phase 3 trials can influence decisions. However, in the case of academia-sponsored trials, a belief in the biomarker-based subgroup analysis of phase 2 trials seemed to be a motivation for conducting a larger phase 3 trial in the biomarker-enriched subgroup population.

    Negative phase 3 RCTs are not futile or meaningless; they are important to advance our understanding of disease and drugs. Nevertheless, because of the financial, human, logistic, and time resources needed to conduct a phase 3 RCT and the patients’ expectation of therapeutic benefit, phase 3 RCTs should be conducted only when there is some prior evidence to suggest a potential therapeutic benefit. If a cancer drug has failed to meet its primary end point in a phase 2 trial, there is neither therapeutic equipoise nor rationale to test it in a phase 3 RCT, and we question if it is against the ethical norms of participating in a phase 3 RCT. Institutional review boards and ethical committees should take a proactive step in discouraging the conduct of such phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that have already failed in phase 2 trials. Indeed, in a recent editorial, the US Food and Drug Administration questions the practice of conducting phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs known to have poor activity in phase 2 trials.76

    Limitations

    We included only those negative phase 3 RCTs published in journals with high impact factors; thus, our findings should be considered conservative. Indeed, our results reflected the best-case scenarios of the negative phase 3 RCTs, and the results would likely be worse for the negative phase 3 RCTs published elsewhere or not published at all. However, our search for phase 2 trials was conducted comprehensively without any journal or time restrictions. Another limitation of our study was the relative difficulty in accessing information on purchase or licensure of a drug from small pharmaceutical companies. Lack of a control group of positive phase 3 RCTs was another limitation; however, our objectives were to assess the association of negative phase 3 RCTs with sponsorship as well as to assess the association of negative phase 3 RCTs with patient survival, and therefore for our purpose, the cohort of negative trials alone sufficed. Furthermore, even though the trials were categorized into groups based on sponsorship, most trials will involve both industry and academia collaboration. We also acknowledge that in some instances of extraordinary responses in phase 1, it may be more efficient to take a drug directly to a phase 3 RCT; however, the activity and criteria for success (taking to a phase 3 RCT) must be prospectively defined in such early-phase trials.

    Conclusions

    In this study of trials published in 2016 through 2018, approximately 40% of negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology were conducted without supporting phase 2 trials, and such phase 3 trials were sponsored by both academia and industry. On the basis of our results, proactive steps from regulators and ethical committees should be contemplated to encourage greater consideration before allowing conduct of phase 3 RCTs despite negative results from phase 2 trials in the interest of protecting patients and trial resources.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: March 19, 2019.

    Published: May 10, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3684

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Addeo A et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Glen J. Weiss, MD, MBA, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 (gweiss@bidmc.harvard.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Gyawali had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: All authors.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Gyawali.

    Obtained funding: Addeo.

    Supervision: Addeo, Gyawali.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Addeo reported receiving personal and consulting fees from MSD Oncology, Roche, Takaeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca, and receiving research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Weiss reported receiving grants to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Incyte, Asana, Macrogenics, and Agenus; receiving consulting fees from and holding ownership interest (service provider units) in Circulogene; receiving consulting fees from Paradigm Diagnostics, Angiex, GLG Council, Guidepoint Global, Imaging Endpoints II, and IBEX Medical Analytics; receiving honoraria from Igynta, Pfizer, and IDEA Pharma; receiving travel and accommodation expenses from Cambridge Healthtech Institute and from Tesaro; and holding a patent (PCT/US2011/020612) related to small cell lung cancer. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    Wong  CH, Siah  KW, Lo  AW.  Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters.  Biostatistics. 2019;20(2):273-286. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Examination of clinical trial costs and barriers for drug development. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/examination-clinical-trial-costs-and-barriers-drug-development. Published July 25, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2019.
    3.
    Institute of Medicine Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation. 6, Clinical trials in cancer. In: Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50895/. Published 2010. Accessed February 20, 2019.
    4.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Inside clinical trials: testing medical products in people. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143531.htm. Updated November 4, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2019.
    5.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Good review practice: clinical review of investigational new drug applications. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM377108.pdf. Published December 2013. Accessed March 15, 2019.
    6.
    Gyawali  B, Addeo  A.  Negative phase 3 randomized controlled trials: why cancer drugs fail the last barrier?  Int J Cancer. 2018;143(8):2079-2081. doi:10.1002/ijc.31583PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Prasad  V, McCabe  C, Mailankody  S.  Low-value approvals and high prices might incentivize ineffective drug development.  Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(7):399-400. doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0030-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Murad  MH, Wang  Z.  Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.  Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4):139-142. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Edelman  MJ, Wang  X, Hodgson  L,  et al; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.  Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of celecoxib in addition to standard chemotherapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression: CALGB 30801 (Alliance).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2184-2192. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.3743PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Jänne  PA, van den Heuvel  MM, Barlesi  F,  et al.  Selumetinib plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone and progression-free survival in patients with KRAS-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer: The SELECT-1 randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(18):1844-1853. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3438PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Hussain  M, Tangen  CM, Thompson  IM  Jr,  et al.  Phase III intergroup trial of adjuvant androgen deprivation with or without mitoxantrone plus prednisone in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: SWOG S9921.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15):1498-1504. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.4126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Noronha  V, Joshi  A, Patil  VM,  et al.  Once-a-week versus once-every-3-weeks cisplatin chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a phase III randomized noninferiority trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(11):1064-1072. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Aparicio  T, Bennouna  J, Le Malicot  K,  et al.  Final results of PRODIGE 9, a randomized phase III comparing no treatment to bevacizumab maintenance during chemotherapy-free intervals in metastatic colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15_suppl):3531. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.3531Google ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Mok  TSK, Kim  S-W, Wu  Y-L,  et al.  Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation–positive non–small-cell lung cancer resistant to first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): overall survival and biomarker analyses.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(36):4027-4034. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.9250PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Oudard  S, Fizazi  K, Sengeløv  L,  et al.  Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial-FIRSTANA.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(28):3189-3197. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1068PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Jalal  SI, Lavin  P, Lo  G, Lebel  F, Einhorn  L.  Carboplatin and etoposide with or without palifosfamide in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter, adaptive, randomized phase III study (MATISSE).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(23):2619-2623. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7454PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Ejlertsen  B, Tuxen  MK, Jakobsen  EH,  et al.  Adjuvant cyclophosphamide and docetaxel with or without epirubicin for early TOP2A-normal breast cancer: DBCG 07-READ, an open-label, phase III, randomized trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(23):2639-2646. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Yao  JC, Guthrie  KA, Moran  C,  et al.  Phase III prospective randomized comparison trial of depot octreotide plus interferon alfa-2b versus depot octreotide plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced carcinoid tumors: SWOG S0518.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1695-1703. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4072PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Agarwala  SS, Lee  SJ, Yip  W,  et al.  Phase III randomized study of 4 weeks of high-dose interferon-α-2b in stage T2bNO, T3a-bNO, T4a-bNO, and T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic) melanoma: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E1697).  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(8):885-892. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.2951PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Spigel  DR, Edelman  MJ, O’Byrne  K,  et al.  Results from the phase III randomized trial of onartuzumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib in previously treated stage IIIB or IV non–small-cell lung cancer: METLung.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(4):412-420. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Beer  TM, Kwon  ED, Drake  CG,  et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial of ipilimumab versus placebo in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with metastatic chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(1):40-47. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.1584PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Cats  A, Jansen  EPM, van Grieken  NCT,  et al; CRITICS Investigators.  Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):616-628. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30132-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Vilgrain  V, Pereira  H, Assenat  E,  et al; SARAH Trial Group.  Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1624-1636. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30683-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Catenacci  DVT, Tebbutt  NC, Davidenko  I,  et al.  Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1467-1482. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30566-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Weller  M, Butowski  N, Tran  DD,  et al; ACT IV Trial Investigators.  Rindopepimut with temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed, EGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma (ACT IV): a randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1373-1385. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30517-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Tap  WD, Papai  Z, Van Tine  BA,  et al.  Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1089-1103. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30381-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Rini  BI, Stenzl  A, Zdrojowy  R,  et al.  IMA901, a multipeptide cancer vaccine, plus sunitinib versus sunitinib alone, as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMPRINT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1599-1611. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30408-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Kerr  RS, Love  S, Segelov  E,  et al.  Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1543-1557. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30172-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Eichhorst  B, Fink  A-M, Bahlo  J,  et al; International Group of Investigators; German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).  First-line chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL10): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):928-942. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30051-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Vansteenkiste  JF, Cho  BC, Vanakesa  T,  et al.  Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):822-835. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00099-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Ryan  CW, Merimsky  O, Agulnik  M,  et al.  PICASSO III: a phase III, placebo-controlled study of doxorubicin with or without palifosfamide in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3898-3905. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6684PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Kelly  K, Altorki  NK, Eberhardt  WEE,  et al.  Adjuvant erlotinib versus placebo in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small-cell lung cancer (RADIANT): a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(34):4007-4014. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.61.8918PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Crump  M, Leppä  S, Fayad  L,  et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of enzastaurin versus placebo in patients achieving remission after first-line therapy for high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2484-2492. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7171PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Powles  T, Huddart  RA, Elliott  T,  et al.  Phase III, double-blind, randomized trial that compared maintenance lapatinib versus placebo after first-line chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 1/2-positive metastatic bladder cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(1):48-55. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.66.3468PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Cameron  D, Morden  JP, Canney  P,  et al; TACT2 Investigators.  Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(7):929-945. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30404-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Gronchi  A, Ferrari  S, Quagliuolo  V,  et al.  Histotype-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas (ISG-STS 1001): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):e301].  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):812-822. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30334-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Gianni  L, Mansutti  M, Anton  A,  et al.  Comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer—the evaluating treatment with neoadjuvant abraxane (etna) trial: a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(3):302-308. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Siu  LL, Waldron  JN, Chen  BE,  et al.  Effect of standard radiotherapy with cisplatin vs accelerated radiotherapy with panitumumab in locoregionally advanced squamous cell head and neck carcinoma: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):220-226. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4510PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Shah  MA, Bang  YJ, Lordick  F,  et al.  Effect of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without onartuzumab in HER2-negative, MET-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: the METGastric randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):620-627. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5580PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Chamie  K, Donin  NM, Klöpfer  P,  et al.  Adjuvant weekly girentuximab following nephrectomy for high-risk renal cell carcinoma: the ARISER randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(7):913-920. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Suntharalingam  M, Winter  K, Ilson  D,  et al.  Effect of the addition of cetuximab to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with esophageal cancer: the NRG Oncology RTOG 0436 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(11):1520-1528. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Venook  AP, Niedzwiecki  D, Lenz  HJ,  et al.  Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(23):2392-2401. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7105PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Powles  T, Durán  I, van der Heijden  MS,  et al.  Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2018;391(10122):748-757. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33297-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Porceddu  SV, Bressel  M, Poulsen  MG,  et al.  Postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the randomized phase III TROG 05.01 trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(13):1275-1283. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0941PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Carvajal  RD, Piperno-Neumann  S, Kapiteijn  E,  et al.  Selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial (SUMIT).  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(12):1232-1239. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.74.1090PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Larkin  J, Minor  D, D’Angelo  S,  et al.  Overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab versus investigator’s choice chemotherapy in CheckMate 037: a randomized, controlled, open-label phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4):383-390. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.8023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Govindan  R, Szczesna  A, Ahn  MJ,  et al.  Phase III trial of ipilimumab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous non–small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(30):3449-3457. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7629PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Sinn  M, Bahra  M, Liersch  T,  et al.  CONKO-005: adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine alone in patients after R0 resection of pancreatic cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(29):3330-3337. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Lee  JH, Kim  H, Joo  YD,  et al; Cooperative Study Group A for Hematology.  Prospective randomized comparison of idarubicin and high-dose daunorubicin in induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(24):2754-2763. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.8618PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Chanan-Khan  A, Cramer  P, Demirkan  F,  et al; HELIOS Investigators.  Ibrutinib combined with bendamustine and rituximab compared with placebo, bendamustine, and rituximab for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (HELIOS): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):200-211. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00465-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Tiseo  M, Boni  L, Ambrosio  F,  et al.  Italian, multicenter, phase III, randomized study of cisplatin plus etoposide with or without bevacizumab as first-line treatment in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: the GOIRC-AIFA FARM6PMFJM trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(12):1281-1287. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4844PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Smith  I, Yardley  D, Burris  H,  et al.  Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-positive early breast cancer: final results of the randomized phase III Femara versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1041-1048. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2871PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    van Imhoff  GW, McMillan  A, Matasar  MJ,  et al.  Ofatumumab versus rituximab salvage chemoimmunotherapy in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the ORCHARRD study.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(5):544-551. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.0198PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Gregorc  V, Gaafar  RM, Favaretto  A,  et al.  NGR-hTNF in combination with best investigator choice in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (NGR015): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):799-811. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30193-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Rimassa  L, Assenat  E, Peck-Radosavljevic  M,  et al.  Tivantinib for second-line treatment of MET-high, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (METIV-HCC): a final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):682-693. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30146-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    De Placido  S, Gallo  C, De Laurentiis  M,  et al; GIM Investigators.  Adjuvant anastrozole versus exemestane versus letrozole, upfront or after 2 years of tamoxifen, in endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (FATA-GIM3): a randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):474-485. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30116-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Loibl  S, O’Shaughnessy  J, Untch  M,  et al.  Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497-509. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Maio  M, Lewis  K, Demidov  L,  et al; BRIM8 Investigators.  Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):510-520. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30106-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    de Boer  SM, Powell  ME, Mileshkin  L,  et al; PORTEC study group.  Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):e184].  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):295-309. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30079-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    60.
    Herbst  RS, Redman  MW, Kim  ES,  et al.  Cetuximab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab versus carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in advanced NSCLC (SWOG S0819): a randomised, phase 3 study.  Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):101-114. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30694-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Wakelee  HA, Dahlberg  SE, Keller  SM,  et al; ECOG-ACRIN.  Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1610-1623. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30691-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Bang  YJ, Xu  RH, Chin  K,  et al.  Olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer who have progressed following first-line therapy (GOLD): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1637-1651. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30682-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Tjan-Heijnen  VCG, van Hellemond  IEG, Peer  PGM,  et al; Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group (BOOG) for the DATA Investigators.  Extended adjuvant aromatase inhibition after sequential endocrine therapy (DATA): a randomised, phase 3 trial  [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):e642].  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1502-1511. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30600-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    64.
    Beer  TM, Hotte  SJ, Saad  F,  et al.  Custirsen (OGX-011) combined with cabazitaxel and prednisone versus cabazitaxel and prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (AFFINITY): a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1532-1542. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30605-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Alderson  D, Cunningham  D, Nankivell  M,  et al.  Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1249-1260. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30447-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Chi  KN, Higano  CS, Blumenstein  B,  et al.  Custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (SYNERGY trial): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):473-485. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30168-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    67.
    Piperno-Neumann  S, Le Deley  MC, Rédini  F,  et al; Sarcoma Group of UNICANCER; French Society of Pediatric Oncology (SFCE); French Sarcoma Group (GSF-GETO).  Zoledronate in combination with chemotherapy and surgery to treat osteosarcoma (OS2006): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1070-1080. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30096-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Hecht  JR, Bang  YJ, Qin  SK,  et al.  Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced or metastatic gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: TRIO-013/LOGiC—a randomized phase III trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):443-451. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.6598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    Piccart-Gebhart  M, Holmes  E, Baselga  J,  et al.  Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1034-1042. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.1797PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    70.
    Lipton  JH, Chuah  C, Guerci-Bresler  A,  et al; EPIC Investigators.  Ponatinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):612-621. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00080-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    Garcia-Manero  G, Fenaux  P, Al-Kali  A,  et al; ONTIME Study Investigators.  Rigosertib versus best supportive care for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of hypomethylating drugs (ONTIME): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(4):496-508. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00009-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    72.
    Reck  M, Luft  A, Szczesna  A,  et al.  Phase III randomized trial of ipilimumab plus etoposide and platinum versus placebo plus etoposide and platinum in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(31):3740-3748. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6601PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    73.
    Smith  M, De Bono  J, Sternberg  C,  et al.  Phase III study of cabozantinib in previously treated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: COMET-1.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(25):3005-3013. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.5597PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    74.
    Kurzeder  C, Bover  I, Marmé  F,  et al.  Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial evaluating pertuzumab combined with chemotherapy for low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 mRNA-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PENELOPE).  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2516-2525. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.66.0787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    Vergote  I, Armstrong  D, Scambia  G,  et al.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study to assess efficacy and safety of weekly farletuzumab in combination with carboplatin and taxane in patients with ovarian cancer in first platinum-sensitive relapse.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(19):2271-2278. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2596PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    76.
    Gormley  NJ, Pazdur  R.  Immunotherapy combinations in multiple myeloma—known unknowns.  N Engl J Med. 2018;379(19):1791-1795. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1803602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×