Systematic review reveals urgent need to homogenize endpoints choices and definitions in marginal zone lymphomas trials

References

• Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA, et al. The 2016 revision of the world health organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood. 2016;127(20):2375–2390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zucca E, Arcaini L, Buske C, et al. Marginal zone lymphomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(1):17–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenglet J, Traullé C, Mounier N, et al. Long-term follow-up analysis of 100 patients with splenic marginal zone lymphoma treated with splenectomy as first-line treatment. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(8):1854–1860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerhan JR, Habermann TM. Epidemiology of marginal zone lymphoma. Ann Lymphoma. 2021;5:1–1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zucca E, Conconi A, Martinelli G, et al. Final results of the IELSG-19 randomized trial of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma: improved event-free and progression-free survival with rituximab plus chlorambucil versus either chlorambucil or rituximab monotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(17):1905–1912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Oncology Center of Excellence, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics; 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man; 2020. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-man.
   Google Scholar
• Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059–3068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matutes E, Oscier D, Montalban C, et al. Splenic marginal zone lymphoma proposals for a revision of diagnostic, staging and therapeutic criteria. Leukemia. 2008;22(3):487–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copie-Bergman C, Wotherspoon AC, Capella C, et al. Gela histological scoring system for post-treatment biopsies of patients with gastric MALT lymphoma is feasible and reliable in routine practice. Br J Haematol. 2013;160(1):47–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71.
   Google Scholar
• Liu L, Wang H, Chen Y, et al. Splenic marginal zone lymphoma: a population-based study on the 2001-2008 incidence and survival in the United States. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(7):1380–1386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalil MO, Morton LM, Devesa SS, et al. Incidence of marginal zone lymphoma in the United States, 2001-2009 with a focus on primary anatomic site. Br J Haematol. 2014;165(1):67–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thieblemont C, Molina T, Davi F. Optimizing therapy for nodal marginal zone lymphoma. Blood. 2016;127(17):2064–2071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arcaini L, Rossi D, Paulli M. Splenic marginal zone lymphoma: from genetics to management. Blood. 2016;127(17):2072–2081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morschhauser F, Fowler NH, Feugier P, et al. Rituximab plus lenalidomide in advanced untreated follicular Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(10):934–947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salles G, Seymour JF, Offner F, et al. Rituximab maintenance for 2 years in patients with high tumour burden follicular lymphoma responding to rituximab plus chemotherapy (PRIMA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9759):42–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt CJA, Buyse M, Köhne CH, et al. Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: a systematic review of the literature in Colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(13):998–1003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis K, Jamani R, McGrath C, et al. A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(6):2019–2033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buggy DJ, Freeman J, Johnson MZ, et al. Systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised endpoints in perioperative medicine: postoperative cancer outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(1):38–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grayling MJ, Dimairo M, Mander AP, et al. A review of perspectives on the use of randomization in phase II oncology trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(12):1255–1262.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey. Garattini S, ed. PLOS One. 2016;11(1):e0146444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–1586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp R, Prasad V. Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? BMC Med. 2017;15(1):134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. Evaluating the evidence behind the surrogate measures included in the FDA’s table of surrogate endpoints as supporting approval of cancer drugs. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;21:100332.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi Q, Flowers CR, Hiddemann W, et al. Thirty-Month complete response as a surrogate end point in first-line follicular lymphoma therapy: an individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(5):552–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi Q, Schmitz N, Ou FS, et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival in first-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials (SEAL). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(25):2593–2602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim C, Prasad V. Strength of validation for surrogate end points used in the US food and drug administration’s approval of oncology drugs. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 May 10:S0025-6196(16)00125-7.
   Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs receiving accelerated approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):906–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen EY, Raghunathan V, Prasad V. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US food and drug administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):915–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noy A, de Vos S, Thieblemont C, et al. Targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase with ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma. Blood. 2017;129(16):2224–2232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler NH, Samaniego F, Jurczak W, et al. Umbralisib, a dual PI3Kδ/CK1ε inhibitor in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15):1609–1618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo CKL, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grellety T, Petit-Monéger A, Diallo A, et al. Quality of reporting of phase II trials: a focus on highly ranked oncology journals. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(2):536–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar