Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board

Publicly available trial matching tools can improve the access to therapeutic innovations, but errors may expose to over-solicitation and disappointment. We performed a pragmatic non-interventional prospective evaluation on sequential patients at the Molecular Tumor Board of Centre Leon Berard. During 10 weeks in 2024, we analysed 157 patients with four clinical trial matching tools from the 19 screened: Klineo, ScreenAct, Trialing and DigitalECMT. Each patient had 2.19 trials proposed on average, and 38% had no trials suggested. The mean performances were precision = 0.33, recall = 0.32, AP@3 = 0.45, and NDCG@3 = 0.34. Using all the tools can increase to 26% the clinical trial options. The most frequent error concerned the type of gene variants required by the selection criteria. We showed that using a Large Language Model on the patients' molecular reports could improve the performance by up to 5%. We recommend that experts supervise the results and we advocate for improved technologies.

Relevance, Risks, and Benefits of Early-Phases Clinical Trials Participations for Patients With Hematological Malignancies From 2008 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed.

RESULTS

Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients.

Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors Participating in Early-Phase Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity (FT) adversely influences patient quality of life and is a barrier to clinical trial enrollment. Early-phase clinical trials (EPCTs) recruit patients who may have high baseline FT and require additional visits and procedures, potentially increasing FT.

METHODS

In this prospective survey study, we sought to assess FT at baseline and after 2 months among patients with advanced solid malignancies participating in EPCTs. Participants were age 18 years and older, were English-speaking, and were treated at the Yale Cancer Center (Yale) and the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai (Mount Sinai). At the time of consent and 2 months later, patients completed a sociodemographic questionnaire as well as the 11-item validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument. Primary outcomes were baseline COST score and change in COST score from baseline to 2 months. Lower score is associated with higher FT.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six patients completed survey 1. Mean age was 61.5 years and 50.7% were male. The most common histologies were lung (17.8%), colorectal (16.4%), and breast (12.3%) cancers. Mean baseline COST score was 22.12 (standard deviation, 8.01). FT was associated with being a primary wage earner (P = .044) and inversely associated with age (P = .025). Seventy-one patients completed survey 2. Among 71 patients who completed both surveys, there was no significant difference in COST score between surveys 1 and 2 (P = .28). Race, ethnicity, education, and household income were not associated with baseline COST score or change in FT.

CONCLUSION

Moderate FT was reported at baseline and on trial among EPCT participants. No change in FT was observed between time points. Additional efforts should be made to decrease FT associated with EPCT participation to maximize access to novel therapies.

Case report: Dramatic impact of DNA next generation sequencing results using specific targeted therapies-ALK and PIK3CA

In the era of targeted therapies, the clinical importance and utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has expanded significantly. Owing to the relative ease and financial feasibility of NGS, the use of personalized treatment strategies has the potential to revolutionize cancer care. In this case report, we explored the use of NGS in salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) and spindle cell neoplasm of the scalp. In our patient with SGC, NGS revealed a GPHN-ALK variant that allowed off-label treatment with alectinib, with a remarkable response in primary and metastatic foci. Similarly, the use of NGS in a cutaneous neoplasm in which no definitive diagnosis could be reached by pathology and which had progressed through standard of care treatment elucidated a PIK3CA mutation in which alpelisib was added and ultimately halted POD. Here, we discuss the use of NGS, future projections, and our recommendations.

Harnessing explainable artificial intelligence for patient-to-clinical-trial matching: A proof-of-concept pilot study using phase I oncology trials

This study aims to develop explainable AI methods for matching patients with phase 1 oncology clinical trials using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to address challenges in patient recruitment for improved efficiency in drug development. A prototype system based on modern NLP techniques has been developed to match patient records with phase 1 oncology clinical trial protocols. Four criteria are considered for the matching: cancer type, performance status, genetic mutation, and measurable disease. The system outputs a summary matching score along with explanations of the evidence. The outputs of the AI system were evaluated against the ground truth matching results provided by the domain expert on a dataset of twelve synthesized dummy patient records and six clinical trial protocols. The system achieved a precision of 73.68%, sensitivity/recall of 56%, accuracy of 77.78%, and specificity of 89.36%. Further investigation into the misclassified cases indicated that ambiguity of abbreviation and misunderstanding of context are significant contributors to errors. The system found evidence of no matching for all false positive cases. To the best of our knowledge, no system in the public domain currently deploys an explainable AI-based approach to identify optimal patients for phase 1 oncology trials. This initial attempt to develop an AI system for patients and clinical trial matching in the context of phase 1 oncology trials showed promising results that are set to increase efficiency without sacrificing quality in patient-trial matching.

Time Burdens for Participants With Advanced Cancer in Phase I Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Participating in phase I cancer clinical trials often entails extra visits and procedures. We describe the planned time and procedures associated with phase I trial participation.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase I cancer trials of new drugs with assessment schedules and results posted between 2020 and 2022. Trials were included if participants had advanced or metastatic disease. Our primary analysis measured the number of planned research days (PRDs; each day a clinic visit is required) per participant up to the first month of trial participation and for the entire trial duration. Secondarily, we estimated the number of research procedures.

RESULTS

Our sample included 71 phase I trials comprising 302 cohorts. These trials enrolled 3,904 participants; the median participation duration was 2.5 months. During screening and up to the first month of participation, the median PRDs per participant was 7 (IQR, 7-10). Across the entire trial, the median PRDs per participant was 4.5 days per month (IQR, 3.30-6.20). Participants spent 15% of trial days attending planned appointments. Per trial cohort, participants were given a median of 8 (IQR, 7-11) physical examinations, 6 (IQR, 3-10) infusions, 6 (IQR, 3-12) electrocardiograms, and 1 (IQR, 1-3) biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Participants commit a substantial amount of time to planned visits in phase I cancer trials, especially in the first month. Overall, they invest 15% of trial days attending planned research activities. These estimates provide a lower bound to the time participants in phase I trials donate to drug development, as our analysis excluded unplanned visits.

Navigating Change in Tumor Naming: Exploring the Complexities and Considerations of Shifting Toward Molecular Classifications

Navigating change in tumor naming. Balance organ-based and molecular classifications for optimal treatment.

Time Toxicity Experienced by Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care-associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care-associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care-associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care-associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P = .002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P = .004), and breast (B = 0.06; P = .015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P = .017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P = .014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P < .001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients.

Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials.

METHODS

We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care.

RESULTS

We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations.

CONCLUSION

Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.

Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials in the Middle East and North Africa: A Review of the Current Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions

Clinical trials, the empirical discipline of medical experimentation conducted on human subjects, have engendered a paradigm shift in medical research. The need for new clinical studies is paramount in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, with its rising cancer incidence and demand for efficient oncology treatments. This paper comprehensively reviews the challenges, opportunities, and future directions of phase I oncology clinical trials in the MENA region. Early-phase trials are vital in determining drug dosage and assessing toxicity, bridging the gap between preclinical research and clinical practice. Considering the unique landscape of MENA, this review explores regulatory aspects, specific hurdles faced, potential advantages, and areas for improvement in conducting these trials. Various future directions can be pursued to maximize the potential of phase I oncology trials in MENA. While regulatory bodies like the Ministry of Health adhere to the International Conference on Harmonization-Good Clinical Practice guidelines, a unified system meeting high standards would yield better results. Strengthening research infrastructure, establishing research centers, incorporating clinical trial education into the curriculum, and improving access to medical facilities are crucial. Enhancing consumer understanding of research would facilitate increased participation and promote sustainability in trial recruitment. Navigating various funding sources would open the door for more funding opportunities. Collaborations between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies, both international and local, should be fostered to promote knowledge sharing, resource pooling, and harmonization of standards. Such collaborations would contribute to the sustainability of clinical trial activities by leveraging collective expertise, sharing research infrastructure, and distributing the burden of regulatory compliance. By adopting these strategies, the MENA region can advance its capacity to conduct early phases of oncology trials and contribute significantly to the global medical research landscape.

Factors Associated with Inclusion of Japan in Phase I Multiregional Clinical Trials in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Early inclusion of Japan in the global development program could be a key factor in reducing the drug lag, making participation in phase I multiregional clinical trials (Ph. I MRCTs) an important consideration for oncology drug development in Japan. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the inclusion of Japan in Ph. I MRCTs in oncology.

METHODS

We compared the trial design, target population, type of primary tested drug, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile for Ph. I MRCTs with or without Japan conducted by the top 20 companies in more than two countries and started between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-seven Ph. I MRCTs included Japan, and 697 did not. Detailed features of the Ph. I MRCTs in oncology were summarized, and several factors (trial design, target population, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile) associated with inclusion of Japan in the Ph. I MRCTs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important for Japanese subsidiaries within global pharmaceutical companies to closely communicate with the headquarters based on medical practice and unmet needs in Japan to join global development from an early stage. In addition, further efforts to attract emerging biopharmaceutical companies to Japan from the regulatory and/or political perspectives would be needed, thereby preventing drug lag in Japan.

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

Development and validation of a patient reported experience measure for experimental cancer medicines (PREM-ECM) and their carers (PREM-ECM-Carer)

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to develop a validated Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) to capture patient and carer experience during participation in experimental cancer medicine trials (ECM): called PREM-ECM.

METHODS

Mixed method design, consisting of four stages. Questionnaire items were produced for both patients and carers using interviews, focus groups, and cognitive interviews with patients and carers separately. For both patient and carer PREMs, a cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted to identify final items for inclusion using hierarchical item reduction and Rasch analysis. Questionnaire validity and reliability were assessed, including administration feasibility.

RESULTS

Initial interview participants suggested the need for three PREMs, two specific to patients: (i) a 'prior' questionnaire that captured experiences of trial introduction, screening, consenting, and early trial experience (< 6 weeks post consent); and (ii) 'on-trial' that captured experiences of ongoing consent and trial participation; and (iii) a PREM specific for carers. The draft 25-item 'prior' questionnaire was completed by 162 patients and 162 patients completed the draft 35-item 'on-trial' questionnaire. Hierarchical and Rasch analysis produced a 14-item 'prior' list and a 15-item list for 'on-trial'. Both patient PREM's demonstrated a good fit to the Rasch model following Bonferroni correction (X2p = 0.008). The carer 34-draft item questionnaire was completed by 102 participants. Hierarchical and Rasch analysis produced a 13-item list for PREM-ECM-Carer, with good fit to the Rasch model ( X2p = 0.62). The pilot testing demonstrated the feasibility of all the PREMs in capturing patient and caregiver experiences in routine clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The three PREM-ECM questionnaires will be the first validated experience measures for ECM trial patients and their carers. These questionnaires may be used to assess patients' and their carers' experiences of ECM and enable robust comparisons across cancer trial units highlighting areas for service improvement.

Facts and Hopes on Biomarkers for Successful Early Clinical Immunotherapy Trials: Innovative Patient Enrichment Strategies

Despite the clinical validation and unequivocal benefit to patients, the development of cancer immunotherapies is facing some key challenges and the attrition rate in early phases of development remains high. Identifying the appropriate patient population that would benefit most from the drug is on the critical path for successful clinical development. We believe that a systematic implementation of patient enrichment strategies early in the drug development process and trial design, is the basis for an innovative, more efficient, and leaner clinical development to achieve earlier a clear proof of concept or proof of failure. In this position article, we will describe and propose key considerations for the implementation of patient enrichment strategies as an opportunity to provide decision-enabling data earlier in the drug development process. We introduce an innovative multidimensional tool for immuno-oncology drug development that focuses on facilitating the identification and prioritization of enrichment-relevant biomarkers, based on the drug mechanism of action. To illustrate its utility, we discuss patient enrichment examples and use a case in the field of cancer immunotherapy, together with technical and regulatory considerations. Overall, we propose to implement fit for purpose enrichment strategies for all investigational drugs as early as possible in the development process. We believe that this will increase the success rate of immuno-oncology clinical trials, and eventually bring new and better medicines to patients faster.

Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy.

METHODS

Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

Phase I Studies: Innovations and Issues

INTRODUCTION

Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Richard Shader, published 2 editorials in 2014 to state that Clinical Therapeutics' would no longer consider simple innovator vs generic bioequivalence studies for publication and would require a rationale for the choice of agents when submitting drug-drug interaction studies for consideration. The intervening decade of developments in this field provides an opportunity to comment on these trends. Lewis Scheiner anchors the subsequent discussion in a "Learn and Confirm" super-structure of thinking about the goals of early development of pharmaceutical agents. Subsequent experience with newer agents that are focused on immunological targets has led to a shift from the simple No Observable Effect Level (NOEL) model to the Minimal Anticipated Biological Effect Level (MABEL) model for biologically focused effects to assess pre-clinical data in guiding the selection of a starting dose for First-in-Human studies.

ELEMENTS OF PHASE I STUDIES

The primary tasks of Phase I activities are to describe the pharmacokinetics (determination of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) and essential pharmacodynamics (the dose correlation with the physiological responses, plus any untoward effects, including idiosyncratic responses) keeping in mind reporting requirements. Other Phase I activities usually conducted later in the development cycle include evaluation of drug interactions with food and other pharmaceutical agents and thorough QT studies.

INNOVATIONS

Phase I studies have been evolving in response to the unrelenting pressures to improve access and efficiencies in time, cost, and effort. Changes have been occurring in the characteristics of the participating populations, the starting dose, and shifts in the enrollment schedule to a more flexible, data-driven, adaptive design.

ISSUES

Additional issues have gained attention in the recent past, including Phase 0/microdosing, use of Phase I studies explicitly for treatment in the case of oncological products, involvement of Data Safety Monitoring Committees especially for first-in-class molecules, and improved means of optimizing selection of candidate agents for advancement to subsequent stages of development. Of final importance is the need for greater transparency of the presently inaccessible, early development study data maintained in commercial corporate legacy databases. Taken together, these developments and innovations by a broad range of stakeholders point to continuing opportunities for clinical investigators to explore the potential of Phase I studies to contribute to their own specialties.

Refining patient selection for next-generation immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials with a novel and externally validated prognostic nomogram

Introduction

Identifying which patient may benefit from immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials is an unmet need in drug development. Among several proposed prognostic scores, none has been validated in patients receiving immunomodulating agents (IMAs)-based combinations.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively collected data of 208 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials investigating IMAs at our Institution, correlating clinical and blood-based variables with overall survival (OS). A retrospective cohort of 50 patients treated with IMAs at Imperial College (Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK) was used for validation.

Results

A total of 173 subjects were selected for analyses. Most frequent cancers included non-small cell lung cancer (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21.5%) and glioblastoma (13%). Multivariate analysis (MVA) revealed 3 factors to be independently associated with OS: line of treatment (second and third vs subsequent, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.93, p 0.02), serum albumin as continuous variable (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, p 0.02) and number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.98, p 0.04). After splitting albumin value at the median (3.84 g/dL), a score system was capable of stratifying patients in 3 groups with significantly different OS (p<0.0001). Relationship with OS reproduced in the external cohort (p=0.008). Then, from these factors we built a nomogram.

Conclusions

Prior treatment, serum albumin and number of metastatic sites are readily available prognostic traits in patients with advanced malignancies participating into immunotherapy early-phase trials. Combination of these factors can optimize patient selection at study enrollment, maximizing therapeutic intent.

Data Monitoring Committees and clinical trials: From scientific justification to organisation

Clinical trials often last several months or even several years. As the trial progresses, it can be tempting to find out whether the data obtained already answers the question posed at the start of the trial in order to stop inclusions or monitoring earlier. However, knowing and taking into account interim results can sometimes compromise the integrity of the results, which is counterproductive. To minimise this risk and ensure that the treatments are assessed reliably, safety and/or efficacy criteria are monitored during the study by a Data Monitoring Committee. After receiving the results confidentially, the Data Monitoring Committee assesses the benefit/risk ratio of the study treatment and recommends that the trial be continued, modified or terminated. Data Monitoring Committee members issuing these recommendations have an important responsibility: a hasty decision to end the trial may lead to inconclusive results unable to answer the initial question and, inversely, delaying the decision to end the trial may expose the subjects to potentially ineffective or even harmful interventions. The Data Monitoring Committee's task is therefore particularly complex. With this in mind, the round table discussion at the Giens workshops was a chance to review the scientific justification for creating Data Monitoring Committees and to recall the need for their members to receive comprehensive training on the complexities of multiple analyses, confidentiality requirements applying to the results and the need for them to be aware that recommendations to end a trial must be based on data that is robust enough to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment studied.

Shifting Sociodemographic Characteristics of a Phase I Clinical Trial Population at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Southeast

Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.

Immunotherapeutic Agents for Intratumoral Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy using systemic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells has revolutionized cancer treatment, but it only benefits a subset of patients. Systemic immunotherapies cause severe autoimmune toxicities and cytokine storms. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) plus the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) have been linked to the inefficacy of systemic immunotherapy. Intratumoral immunotherapy that increases immunotherapeutic agent bioavailability inside tumors could enhance the efficacy of immunotherapies and reduce systemic toxicities. In preclinical and clinical studies, intratumoral administration of immunostimulatory agents from small molecules to xenogeneic cells has demonstrated antitumor effects not only on the injected tumors but also against noninjected lesions. Herein, we review and discuss the results of these approaches in preclinical models and clinical trials to build the landscape of intratumoral immunotherapeutic agents and we describe how they stimulate the body's immune system to trigger antitumor immunity as well as the challenges in clinical practice. Systemic and intratumoral combination immunotherapy would make the best use of the body's immune system to treat cancers. Combining precision medicine and immunotherapy in cancer treatment would treat both the mutated targets in tumors and the weakened body's immune system simultaneously, exerting maximum effects of the medical intervention.

Cancer Care by Committee to be Superseded by Personal Physician-Patient Partnership Informed by Artificial Intelligence

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) have become the reference standard of cancer management, founded upon randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence-based guidelines. The inordinate delays inherent in awaiting formal regulatory agency approvals of novel therapeutic agents, and the rigidities and nongeneralizability of this regimented approach, often deny cancer patients timely access to effective innovative treatment. Reluctance of MTBs to accept theranostic care of patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer resulted in decades of delay in the incorporation of 177Lu-octreotate and 177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) into routine clinical oncology practice. Recent developments in immunotherapy and molecular targeted precision therapy, based on N-of-One individual multifactorial genome analyses, have greatly increased the complexity of decision-making. Burgeoning specialist workload and tight time frames now threaten to overwhelm the logistically, and emotionally, demanding MTB system. It is hypothesized that the advent of advanced artificial intelligence technology and Chatbot natural language algorithms will shift the cancer care paradigm from a MTB management model toward a personal physician-patient shared-care partnership for real-world practice of precision individualized holistic oncology.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Industry-Sponsored Phase I Oncology Studies: Considerations for Translating Theory Into Practice

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues.

Travel Time and Distance and Participation in Precision Oncology Trials at the National Cancer Center Hospital

Importance

Genotype-matched trials, which are becoming increasingly important in the precision oncology era, require referrals from institutions providing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing to those conducting these trials, and the travel burden for trial participation is significant. However, it remains unknown whether travel time or distance are associated with genotype-matched trial participation.

Objective

To assess whether travel time or distance are associated with disparities in genotype-matched trial participation following CGP testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study from June 2020 to June 2022 included patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital for participation in genotype-matched trials following CGP testing and discussion by molecular tumor boards. Data were analyzed from June to October 2022.

Exposures

Travel time and distance.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary and secondary outcomes were enrollment in genotype-matched trials and all-cancer clinical trials, respectively.

Results

Of 1127 patients (mean [range] age, 62 [16-85] years; 584 women [52%]; all residents of Japan), 127 (11%) and 241 (21%) were enrolled in genotype-matched trials and all-cancer clinical trials, respectively. The overall median (IQR) travel distance and time were 38 (21-107) km and 55 (35-110) minutes, respectively. On multivariable regression with 23 covariates, travel distance (≥100 km vs <100 km) was not associated with the likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation (26 of 310 patients [8%] vs 101 of 807 patients [12%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.02), whereas in patients with travel time of 120 minutes or more, the likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation was significantly lower than those with travel time less than 120 minutes (19 of 276 patients [7%] vs 108 of 851 patients [13%]; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84). The likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation decreased as travel time increased from less than 40 (38 of 283 patients [13%]) to 40 to 120 (70 of 568 patients [12%]) and 120 or more (19 of 276 patients [7%]) minutes (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, respectively). Neither travel time nor distance were associated with the likelihood of all-cancer clinical trial participation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patients undergoing CGP testing, an increased travel time was associated with a decreased likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation. This warrants further research on interventions, such as decentralization of clinical trials to mitigate travel burden.

Exploratory Analysis of Drug Lag in New Oncology Drugs Between Japan and the US

BACKGROUND

Drug lag in Japan has greatly decreased over the past decades; however, new instances of drug lag have appeared along with changes in the circumstances of oncology drug development. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the approval lag for new oncology drugs between Japan and the United States (US) over the past decade by comparing approval dates and modalities, lead indications, approval types, and phase I strategies for earlier approval in Japan.

METHOD

We descriptively evaluated the characteristics of 117 new oncology drugs approved in either Japan or the US from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Seventy-one drugs were approved in Japan, 112 in the US, five only in Japan, and 46 only in the US. Interestingly, new oncology drugs were predominantly developed by the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in Japan; however, the opposite was true for drugs that were not yet approved in Japan. However, no clear trend was observed in the relationship between drug lag and the studied factors, except for the phase I strategy. There was a numerical but clear trend in which a higher percentage of phase I multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) in the drug development strategy was observed for drugs with earlier approval in Japan.

CONCLUSION

Participation in global drug development during the early stages, such as during phase I MRCTs, is one of the keys to successfully minimizing this new instance of drug lag in Japan.

Complete response to alectinib in ALK-fusion metastatic salivary ductal carcinoma

The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has allowed for the identification of novel therapeutic targets for patients with uncommon cancers. It is well known that fusion translocations are potent driver of cancer pathogenesis and can render tumors exquisitely sensitive to matching targeted therapies. Here we describe a patient with ALK-fusion positive widely metastatic salivary ductal carcinoma, who achieved a durable complete response from alectinib, a potent and specific ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This case serves as another reminder that ALK-fusions can be targeted regardless of histology and can afford patients dramatic and durable benefit. It also emphasizes the need for insurance coverage for such beneficial therapies. While ALK fusions are exceedingly rare in salivary ductal carcinoma, the presence of multiple other targetable aberrations supports the recommendation for universal NGS testing for such tumors.

Identifying Early-Phase Clinical Trial Participants at Risk for Experiencing Worse Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To identify early-phase clinical trial (EP-CT) participants at risk for experiencing worse clinical outcomes and describe receipt of supportive care services.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services. The validated Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognosis score was calculated using data at the time of EP-CT enrollment (scores range from 0 to 3; scores ≥ 2 indicate poor prognosis). Differences in patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services were compared on the basis of RMH scores.

RESULTS

Among 350 patients (median age = 63.2 years [range, 23.0-84.3 years], 57.1% female, 98.0% metastatic cancer), 31.7% had an RMH score indicating a poor prognosis. Those with poor prognosis RMH scores had worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P < .001), shorter time on trial (HR, 1.53; P < .001), and lower likelihood of completing the dose-limiting toxicity period (odds ratio, 0.42; P = .006) versus those with good prognosis scores. Patients with poor prognosis scores had greater risk of emergency room visits (HR, 1.66; P = .037) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.69; P = .016) while on trial, and earlier hospice enrollment (HR, 2.22; P = .006). Patients with poor prognosis scores were significantly more likely to receive palliative care consultation (46.8% v 27.6%; P < .001), but not other supportive care services.

CONCLUSION

This study found that RMH prognosis score could identify patients at risk for decreased survival, shorter time on trial, and greater use of health care services. The findings underscore the need to develop supportive care interventions targeting EP-CT participants' distinct needs.

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

Views of IRB members regarding phase 1 pediatric oncology trials

There is significant debate over whether phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are ethical and approvable. We thus surveyed IRB members to answer four questions. First, do IRB members think the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks? Second, do they think these trials are ethically appropriate? Third, do they think these trials are approvable? Fourth, how do the views of IRB members on the first two questions compare to the views of the US public? Of the 80 respondents who answered the test questions correctly, 18.8% stated that the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials outweigh the risks, 32.5% stated that the potential medical benefits and risks are about equal, and 48.8% stated that the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits. Compared to the general public, IRB members were significantly more likely to think the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits (p = 0.01). Finally, 68.8% of IRB members indicated that average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable, and 56.3% indicated that these trials are appropriate in children. These findings suggest two-thirds of IRB members believe average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable. Yet, almost half regard the risks as outweighing the potential medical benefits and almost half think these trials are inappropriate. These findings raise important questions regarding why IRB members and the general public evaluate the same risk/benefit profile differently, and whether it is possible to reconcile the two perspectives.

Impact of travel distance on outcomes for clinical trial patients: the Kinghorn Cancer Centre experience

BACKGROUND

Geographic isolation and travel distance to specialist care is a known social determinant of health and contributes to poorer oncology survival outcomes.

AIMS

To compare survival and toxicity outcomes for patients travelling long distances (>50 km) for treatment on clinical trials with local patients (<10 km and 10-50 km).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study based at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre, a comprehensive cancer care centre in metropolitan Sydney. We included adult patients with advanced solid-organ malignancies who were enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials between July 2015 and December 2017. Outcome measures included overall survival, progression-free survival, rates of grade 3-4 toxicity and unplanned hospital admissions for the duration of the clinical trial.

RESULTS

We included 173 patients, of whom 27% lived within 10 km, 29% lived between 10 and 50 km and 44% lived further than 50 km. We did not identify significant differences between survival or toxicity outcomes between patients travelling long distances and local patients.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients should be considered for clinical trial referral based on clinical parameters and preference, regardless of geographic proximity. In the meantime, improving access to clinical trials for rural and regional patients continues to be a priority.

Use of Single-Arm Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval in Oncology, 2002-2021

Importance

Single-arm trials have allowed for transformative therapies to be made available to patients expeditiously. However, using single-arm trials to support drug approval presents several challenges that must be carefully considered.

Observations

Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted 176 new malignant hematology and oncology indications based on single-arm trials, including 116 accelerated approvals (AAs) and 60 traditional approvals. Overall, 87 approvals (49%) were for new molecular entities or original biologics and 89 (51%) were supplemental indications. Response rate (RR) was the most common end point used to support approval in these single-arm trials (173 of 176 [98%]). Of the 116 AAs based on single-arm trials, 45 (38%) fulfilled their postmarketing requirement to verify clinical benefit, 61 (52%) are pending verification of benefit, and 10 (9%) were withdrawn from the market as of December 31, 2021. Most (56 of 61 [92%]) AAs based on single-arm trials pending verification of benefit occurred during the previous 5 years and have ongoing confirmatory trials as of December 2021.

Conclusions and Relevance

Single-arm trials have been a common development strategy to support regulatory approval as early-stage expansion cohorts with promising durable RRs have become more prevalent. In the appropriate context, single-arm trials using durable RRs can allow patients expedited access to novel therapies and will continue to serve a role in advancing drug development in oncology. However, single-arm trials have a smaller noncomparative safety data set, inability to use time-to-event end points, and other limitations that require careful consideration within the context of the disease and available therapies. The randomized clinical trial remains the preferred approach in clinical investigation.

Molecular analysis for refractory rare cancers: Sequencing battle continues - learnings for the MOSCATO-01 study

BACKGROUND

For patients with metastatic rare cancers, treatments are limited. How systematic tumor sequencing can improve therapeutic possibilities in this population?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with rare cancer were identified in the MOSCATO-01 trial. Patients' outcome was measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The most frequently identified histologic subypes were ovarian adenocarcinoma (N = 13), carcinoma of unknown primary (N = 11), and leiomyosarcoma (N = 10). Ninety-nine (39%) of them had at least one targetable cancer molecular alteration Forty-nine patients (50%) received the therapy proposed by the molecular tumor board, and 13 patients (26%, 95%CI 15-41%) achieved a PFS2/PFS1 > 1.3. The median PFS2 on matched treatment subgroup was 2.3 months (95% CI 1.8-3.6) and the median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI 9-15.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The molecular screening of patients with refractory, metastatic rare cancers might increase the therapeutic options. Facilitating access strategy to molecular-driven clinical trials or agnostic-approved treatment is crucial.

Molecular oncology: what is needed to speed access to innovative therapies in clinical research?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A better understanding of the biology of cancer cells has led in the past 20 years to more and more molecular and immunological driven treatment strategies impacting both clinical trials and day-to-day practice. The aim of this review is to describe new approaches to conduct clinical trials in this area to speed up drug development and increase access to innovation for cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The design of an early phase trial has an impact on its clinical benefit. Trials deriving from a specific biomarker or histologic characteristic (also known as enrichment design) are more likely to demonstrate benefit than trials based on a more conventional design. However, the increase of low incidence cancer molecular subtypes poses a major hurdle in the clinical management and drug development research for cancer patients.

SUMMARY

With the identification of news targets and the subsequent introduction of precision medicine, new strategies and tools are needed to provide access to biomarker identification and target-oriented clinical trials to all cancer patients. We propose to set up a new patient-centered model to conduct clinical trials allowing simply to 'bring the trial to the patient'.

Early drug development in solid tumours: analysis of National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase 1 trials

BACKGROUND

The low expectation of clinical benefit from phase 1 cancer therapeutics trials might negatively affect patient and physician participation, study reimbursement, and slow the progress of oncology research. Advances in cancer drug development, meanwhile, might have favourably improved treatment responses; however, little comprehensive data exist describing the response and toxicity associated with phase 1 trials across solid tumours. The aim of the study is to evaluate the trend of toxicity and response in phase 1 trials for solid tumours over time.

METHODS

We analysed patient-level data from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigator-initiated phase 1 trials for solid tumours, from Jan 1, 2000, to May 31, 2019. We assessed risks of treatment-related death (grade 5 toxicity ratings possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to treatment), all on-treatment deaths (deaths during protocol treatment regardless of attribution), grade 3-4 toxicity, and proportion of overall response (complete response and partial response) and complete response rate in the study periods of 2000-05, 2006-12, and 2013-2019, and evaluated their trends over time. We also analysed cancer type-specific and investigational agent-specific response, and analysed the trend of response in each cancer type over time. Univariate associations of overall response rates with patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status, BMI, albumin concentration, and haemoglobin concentration), enrolment period, investigational agents, and trial design were assessed using risk ratio based on the modified Poisson regression model.

FINDINGS

We analysed 465 protocols that enrolled 13 847 patients using 261 agents. 144 (31%) trials used a monotherapy and 321 (69%) used combination therapies. The overall treatment-related death rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·5-0·8) across all periods. Risks of treatment-related deaths did not change over time (p=0·52). All on-treatment death risk during the study period was 8·0% (95% CI 7·6-8·5). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological; grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 2336 (16·9%) of 13 847 patients, lymphopenia in 1230 (8·9%), anaemia in 894 (6·5%), and thrombocytopenia in 979 (7·1%). The overall response rate for all trials during the study period was 12·2% (95% CI 11·5-12·8; 1133 of 9325 patients) and complete response rate was 2·7% (2·4-3·0; 249 of 9325). Overall response increased from 9·6% (95% CI 8·7-10·6) in 2000-05 to 18·0% (15·7-20·5) in 2013-19, and complete response rates from 2·5% (2·0-3·0) to 4·3% (3·2-5·7). Overall response rates for combination therapy were substantially higher than for monotherapy (15·8% [15·0-16·8] vs 3·5% [2·8-4·2]). The overall response by class of agents differed across diseases. Anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with higher overall response rate for bladder, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. DNA repair inhibitors were associated with higher overall response rate in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. The rates of overall response over time differed markedly by disease; there were notable improvements in bladder, breast, and kidney cancer and melanoma, but no change in the low response of pancreatic and colon cancer.

INTERPRETATION

During the past 20 years, the response rate in phase 1 trials nearly doubled without an increase in the treatment-related death rate. However, there is significant heterogeneity in overall response by various factors such as cancer type, investigational agent, and trial design. Therefore, informed decision making is crucial for patients before participating in phase 1 trials. This study provides updated encouraging outcomes of modern phase 1 trials in solid tumours.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes

Background

Clinical trials are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic opportunity for cancer patients. Favoring their concentration in few high-expertise academic centers maximizes quality of data collection but poses an issue of access equality. Analytical tools to quantify trial accessibility are needed to rationalize resources.

Materials and methods

We constructed a distance-based accessibility index (dAI) using publicly available data on demographics, cancer incidence and trials. Multiple strategies were applied to mitigate or quantify clear sources of bias: reporting biases by text mining multiple registries; reliability of simple geographical distance by comparison with high-quality travel cost data for Italy; index inflation due to highly heterogeneous cancer incidence by log-transformation. We studied inequalities by Gini index and time trend significance by Mann–Kendall test. We simulated different resource allocation models in representative countries and identified locations where new studies would maximally improve the national index.

Results

The dAI approximated well a more realistic but not widely applicable travel cost-based index. Accessibility was unevenly distributed across and within countries (Gini index ∼0.75), with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries (China, United States, Russian Federation). Over time, accessibility increased but less than the total number of trials, most evidently in upper-middle-income countries. Simulations in representative countries (Italy and Serbia) identified ideal locations able to maximally raise the national index.

Conclusions

Access to clinical trials is highly uneven across and within countries and is not mitigated by simple increase in the number of trials; a rational algorithmic approach can be used to mitigate inequalities.

•

Accessibility to cancer clinical trials grew less than total number of trials over time in upper-middle-income countries.

•

Accessibility is unevenly distributed, with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries.

•

Simulation of resource allocation can identify ideal locations able to raise the national accessibility index.

Hope and meaning-making in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence on patient-participant experiences

Background

Phase 1 drug trials are popular treatment options for patients with advanced disease, despite the greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. However, their meaning and consequences for patient-participants remains under-explored. This review synthesises the qualitative evidence of patients’ experiences of participating in phase 1 oncology trials, exploring their decisions to take part and the impacts of these trials on patient wellbeing.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search involving medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords was undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, with supplementary searches also conducted. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Included studies were critically appraised and data extracted using standardised forms. Qualitative results were analysed using thematic synthesis.

Results

Three main themes were identified across 13 studies: decision-making and joining the trial; experiences of taking part in the trial and hope and coping. Patients primarily joined trials hoping for therapeutic benefits, sentiments which prevailed and shaped their experiences across their trial journey. Rather than indicate therapeutic misconception based on poor understanding, patient perspectives more commonly pointed to differences between hope and expectation and cultural narratives of staying positive, trying everything and trusting in experts.

Conclusions

These findings challenge information-based models of consent, favouring coping frameworks which account for the role of hope and meaning-making during serious illness. Personalised consideration of existential and quality-of-life matters before and during trials is recommended, including palliative and supportive care alternatives to active treatment.

Review Registration

The review was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD 42020163250).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06306-9.

Early phase trials in soft-tissue sarcomas: clinical benefit of inclusion in early lines of treatment, molecular screening, and histology-driven trials

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) remains dismal, and systemic therapeutic options are limited. Early phase trials are becoming increasingly safe and effective. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included all STS patients participating in early phase trials at Gustave Roussy and Léon Bérard between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, 199 patients accounted for 214 inclusions in advanced STS. The most frequent histotypes were well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcomas (n = 55), leiomyosarcomas (n = 53), synovial sarcomas (n = 22), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas (n = 15), angiosarcomas (n = 12), and myxoid liposarcomas (n = 10). The median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval 2.7-4.1 months). The median PFS in the first, second, and later lines was 8.3, 5.4, and 2.6 months, respectively (P = 0.00015). The median PFS was 2.8 months in case of molecular screening, 4.1 months in case of histology-driven screening, and 1.6 months (P = 0.00014) in the absence of either screening modalities. In univariate analysis, histotype (P = 0.026), complex genomics (P = 0.008), number of prior lines (P < 0.001), prior anthracyclines (P < 0.001), number of metastatic sites (P = 0.003), liver metastasis (P < 0.001), lung metastasis (P < 0.001), absence of molecular or histology-driven screening (P < 0.001), first-in-human trials (P < 0.001), dose-escalation cohorts (P = 0.011), and Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score >1 (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with shorter PFS. In multivariate analysis, independent prognostic factors for shorter PFS were myxoid liposarcoma (P = 0.031), ≥2 prior lines of treatment (P = 0.033), liver metastasis (P = 0.007), and RMH score >2 (P = 0.006). Factors associated with improved PFS were leiomyosarcomas (P = 0.010), molecular screening (P = 0.025), and histology-driven screening (P = 0.010). The median overall survival rates were 36.3, 12.6, and 9.2 months in the first, second, and later lines, respectively (P = 0.0067). The grade 3-4 toxicity rate was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

Early phase trials provide an active therapeutic option for STS, even in first-line settings. Molecular screening and histology-driven trials further improve the clinical benefit.

Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute

PURPOSE

Cancer drug development has largely shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to targeted treatment in the past two decades. Although previous studies have highlighted improvement in response rates in recent phase I trials, disease-focused reporting is limited.

METHODS

We integrated patient-level data for patients with hematologic malignancies who participated in phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program between January 2000 and May 2019 and estimated the trend of grade 5 toxicity and response by disease subtype over time.

RESULTS

We analyzed 161 trials involving 3,308 patients, all of whom were assessed for toxicity and 2,404 of whom were evaluable for response to therapy. The overall rate of grade 5 toxicities was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.27), with no significant change in the rate over time. Baseline characteristics associated with higher risk of grade 5 toxicity were age and performance status ≥ 2 at enrollment. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate for all trials during the study period were 25.1% and 14.7%, respectively. A significant increase in both ORR and CR rate was observed over time (ORR: 18.5% in 2000-2005, 25.9% in 2006-2012, and 50.6% in 2013-2019, P < .001). ORR in phase I trials varied across disease subtypes: 20.2% in acute myeloid leukemia, 9.1% in myelodysplastic syndrome, 43.2% in lymphoma, 42.9% in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 15.1% in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 16.5% in myeloma.

CONCLUSION

Over time, the ORR and CR rates in phase I trials for hematologic malignancy have improved meaningfully, whereas the rate of toxicity-related death remains stable. This study provides broad experience that physicians can use when discussing the potential outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy considering participation in phase I trials.

Patients in phase 1 cancer trials: psychological distress and understanding of trial information

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress may be present among patients who are considering enrollment in phase 1 cancer trials, as they have advanced cancer and no documented treatment options remain. However, the prevalence of psychological distress has not been previously investigated in larger cohorts. In complex phase 1 cancer trials, it is important to ensure adequate understanding of the study premises, such as the undocumented effects and the risk of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, patients completed questionnaires at two time points. We investigated psychological distress, measured as stress, anxiety, and depression, among patients at their first visit to the phase 1 unit (N = 229). Further, we investigated the understanding of trial information among patients who were enrolled in a phase 1 cancer trial (N = 57).

RESULTS

We enrolled 75% of 307 eligible patients. We found a lower mean score of stress in our population compared to population norms, while the mean scores of anxiety and depression were higher. A total of 9% showed moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety and 11% showed moderate to severe symptoms of depression, which indicates higher levels than cancer patients in general. A total of 46 (81% of enrolled patients) completed questionnaires on trial information and consent. The understanding of the information on phase 1 cancer trials in these patients was slightly lower than the level reported for cancer trials in general. Some aspects relating to purpose, benefit, and additional risks were understood by fewer than half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that distress is not as prevalent in the population of patients referred to phase 1 cancer trials as in the general cancer population. Although patients' understanding of trial information was reasonable, some aspects of complex phase 1 cancer trials were not easily understood by enrolled patients.

Immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials and malignant gliomas: A single-center experience and comprehensive immunophenotyping of circulating leukocytes

Background

Immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials (ieCTs) increasingly adopt large expansion cohorts exploring novel agents across different tumor types. High-grade glioma (HGG) patients are usually excluded from these trials.

Methods

Data of patients with recurrent HGGs treated within multicohort ieCTs between February 2014 and August 2019 (experimental group, EG) at our Phase I Unit were retrospectively reviewed and compared to a matched control group (CG) of patients treated with standard therapies. We retrospectively evaluated clinical, laboratory, and molecular parameters through univariate and multivariate analysis. A prospective characterization of circulating leukocyte subpopulations was performed in the latest twenty patients enrolled in the EG, with a statistical significance cutoff of P < .1.

Results

Thirty HGG patients were treated into six ieCTs. Fifteen patients received monotherapies (anti-PD-1, anti-CSF-1R, anti-TGFβ, anti-cereblon), fifteen patients combination regimens (anti-PD-L1 + anti-CD38, anti-PD-1 + anti-CSF-1R). In the EG, median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) from treatment initiation were 1.8 and 8.6 months; twelve patients survived more than 12 months, and two of them more than 6 years. Univariate analysis identified O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation and total protein value at six weeks as significantly correlated with a better outcome. Decreased circulating neutrophils and increased conventional dendritic cells levels lead to significantly better OS.

Conclusions

A subgroup of EG patients achieved remarkably durable disease control. MGMT promoter methylation identifies patients who benefit more from immunotherapy. Monitoring dynamic changes of innate immune cell populations may help to predict clinical outcomes.

Multicenter Analysis of Genomically Targeted Single Patient Use Requests for Pediatric Neoplasms

PURPOSE

The US Food and Drug Administration-expanded access program (EAP) uses a single patient use (SPU) mechanism to provide patient access to investigational agents in situations where no satisfactory or comparable therapy is available. Genomic profiling of de novo and relapsed or refractory childhood cancer has led to increased identification of new drug targets in the last decade. The aim of this study is to examine the SPU experience for genomically targeted therapies in patients with pediatric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All genomically targeted therapeutic SPUs obtained over a 5-year period were evaluated at four large pediatric cancer programs. Data were collected on the type of neoplasm, agents requested, corresponding molecularly informed targets, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 45 SPUs in 44 patients were identified. Requests were predominantly made for CNS and solid tumors (84.4%) compared with hematologic malignancies (15.6%). Lack of an available clinical trial was the main reason for SPU initiation (64.4%). The median time from US Food and Drug Administration submission to approval was 3 days (range, 0-12 days) and from Institutional Review Board submission to approval was 5 days (range, 0-50 days). Objective tumor response was seen in 39.5% (15 of 38) of all evaluable SPUs. Disease progression was the primary reason for discontinuation of drug (66.7%) followed by toxicity (13.3%).

CONCLUSION

SPU requests remain an important mechanism for pediatric access to genomically targeted agents given the limited availability of targeted clinical trials for children with high-risk neoplasms. Furthermore, this subset of SPUs resulted in a substantial number of objective tumor responses. The development of a multi-institutional data registry of SPUs may enable systematic review of toxicity and clinical outcomes and provide evidence-based access to new drugs in rare pediatric cancers.

Clinical Utility of Precision Medicine in Pediatric Oncology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Precision medicine uses advanced molecular techniques to guide the use of targeted therapeutic drugs and is an emerging paradigm in pediatric oncology. Clinical evidence related to the efficacy of many novel targeted drugs, however, is currently very limited given the rarity of pediatric cancer and the lack of published evidence for the use of these drugs in children. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing evidence for the feasibility and clinical efficacy of precision medicine in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Clinical trials and observational studies, which used molecular assays such as whole-exome sequencing to identify molecular targets that guided the allocation of targeted cancer drugs and reported clinical outcomes, were included in this review.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinical trials and observational studies were identified, collectively enrolling 1,408 pediatric patients across nine countries. Therapeutic targets were found in 647 patients (46.0%); however, only 175 of these patients (27.0%) received a targeted drug. Objective responses were recorded for 73 (41.7%) of these 175 patients, only 5.2% of the total sample. Inconsistent outcome reporting and limited comparison with conventional treatment hindered evaluation of the clinical utility of precision medicine.

CONCLUSION

Precision medicine can feasibly identify molecular targets in a clinical setting. However, the inaccessibility of targeted drugs is a significant barrier, restricting the exploration of its therapeutic potential in pediatric oncology. Future clinical trials should endeavor to link the molecular testing results with access to targeted drugs and standardize outcome reporting to advance understanding of the benefits of this novel paradigm in improving patient outcomes.

Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public

OBJECTIVES

To assess the US public's views on whether the potential medical benefits of phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks.

STUDY DESIGN

Online survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which they have a 10-year-old child with advanced cancer. They were then offered the option of giving their child supportive care or trying one more potential treatment, in the research or clinical care setting, which has the same risks and potential medical benefits as the average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. We assessed what percentage of respondents thought the potential medical benefits justify the risks.

RESULTS

In total, 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey participated (response rate = 66.1%). Of those who passed all 3 test questions indicating understanding, 67.1% in the research scenario and 58.5% in the clinical care scenario regarded the potential medical benefits of an average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial as equal to or greater than the risks. In addition, 53.4% of respondents in the research scenario thought it was appropriate for researchers to conduct a study in children with these risks and potential medical benefits, and 46.9% stated they would enroll their own child in such a trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of the US public regards the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials as justifying the risks. This finding suggests that these trials are ethically appropriate and approvable in patients who have no more effective treatment options. At the same time, a significant minority thought the potential medical benefits do not justify the risks, suggesting these trials should be approved only when they have significant social value. Moreover, approximately one-half of respondents regarded the trials as inappropriate and would not enroll their own child, underscoring the need for a rigorous informed consent process that accurately educates parents regarding the risks, potential medical benefits, and alternatives, so they can decide whether to enroll their child based on their own preferences and goals.

Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single-Agent Anticancer Therapies

PURPOSE

Phase I trials are a crucial step in the evaluation of new cancer therapies. Historically, low rates of response (5%) and comparably high rates of death from toxicities (0.5%) have contributed to debates on the ethics and orientation of these trials. With the introduction of novel targeted therapies, a contemporary estimate is needed.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports of phase I oncology trials of single-agent targeted immunomodulators, molecularly targeted therapies, and antiangiogenic agents, published between January 2015 and July 2018. Adult and pediatric trials of solid and hematological malignancies were eligible. Treatment-related adverse events (grades 3, 4, and 5) and response rates (objective, complete, and partial) were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight trial reports, covering 6,707 patients, were included. The rate of treatment-related deaths was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1), while 13.2% of patients (9.5 to 17.3) experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicity. The combined objective response rate was 6.4% (4.6 to 8.5). Among trials using tumor biomarkers as eligibility criteria, the objective response rate was higher (12.0% [7.3 to 17.6] compared to 4.9% [2.5 to 5.7], P value < .01). The same was true of trials focusing on a single tumor type (13.4% [8.2 to 19.4]) compared to multiple tumor types (3.8% [2.5 to 5.3], P value < .01).

CONCLUSION

Reduced grade 5 risk and improved benefit appears to exist in modern phase I oncology trials, particularly in trials that target single tumor types and integrate biomarkers as eligibility criteria. These findings provide information to support informed consent discussions, highlight the need for improved reporting of phase I oncology trials, and provide direction for optimizing their design.