Systematic review of the CUP trials characteristics and perspectives for next-generation studies

Background: Research on therapeutic strategies for patients with unknown primary cancer (CUP) has been underwhelming. This paper summarized and evaluated the CUP therapeutic research over the previous five years. Based on this evaluation, recommendations for clinical trial designs are made to improve the impact of CUP research on patients.Methods: Published and ongoing research were evaluated. PubMed was searched from January 1, 2015, to November 1, 2021. The start date of 2015 was chosen to identify research published after ESMO issued new diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. The US National Library of Medicine indexed ongoing clinical trials.Findings: Of the 244 CUP studies indexed in PubMed, 11.9% were prospective studies, and 4.9% were clinical trials. The review protocol deemed 65 publications eligible for full-text review. Eleven studies evaluating therapeutic regimens were retained. The two prospective studies and non-randomized trials showed promising outcomes for site-specific treatments. Randomized clinical trials were less promising; however, the trials had recruitment challenges resulting in biased accrual and the inability to keep pace with advancing diagnostics and therapeutics. Most of the 35 ongoing studies were phase II single-arm trials assessing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or site-specific therapies among CUP patients with suspected favorable prognoses.Conclusion: Our evaluation suggests two prospective clinical trial designs that addressed recent study design and recruitment challenges. A visionary approach uses a multi-arm, multistage randomized trial to address rapid advancements in diagnosis and therapy. A pragmatic approach utilizes a single-arm trial with historical controls to overcome comparison group and recruitment challenges.

Automated summary

The paper summarizes and evaluates therapeutic research for unknown primary cancer (CUP) over the past five years. Based on this evaluation, recommendations for clinical trial designs are made to improve the impact of CUP research on patients.