New clinical research strategies in thoracic oncology: clinical trial design, adaptive, basket and umbrella trials, new end-points and new evaluations of response

Reporting and communication of sample size calculations in adaptive clinical trials: a review of trial protocols and grant applications

BACKGROUND

An adaptive design allows modifying the design based on accumulated data while maintaining trial validity and integrity. The final sample size may be unknown when designing an adaptive trial. It is therefore important to consider what sample size is used in the planning of the study and how that is communicated to add transparency to the understanding of the trial design and facilitate robust planning. In this paper, we reviewed trial protocols and grant applications on the sample size reporting for randomised adaptive trials.

METHOD

We searched protocols of randomised trials with comparative objectives on ClinicalTrials.gov (01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022). Contemporary eligible grant applications accessed from UK publicly funded researchers were also included. Suitable records of adaptive designs were reviewed, and key information was extracted and descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

We identified 439 records, and 265 trials were eligible. Of these, 164 (61.9%) and 101 (38.1%) were sponsored by industry and public sectors, respectively, with 169 (63.8%) of all trials using a group sequential design although trial adaptations used were diverse. The maximum and minimum sample sizes were the most reported or directly inferred (n = 199, 75.1%). The sample size assuming no adaptation would be triggered was usually set as the estimated target sample size in the protocol. However, of the 152 completed trials, 15 (9.9%) and 33 (21.7%) had their sample size increased or reduced triggered by trial adaptations, respectively. The sample size calculation process was generally well reported in most cases (n = 216, 81.5%); however, the justification for the sample size calculation parameters was missing in 116 (43.8%) trials. Less than half gave sufficient information on the study design operating characteristics (n = 119, 44.9%).

CONCLUSION

Although the reporting of sample sizes varied, the maximum and minimum sample sizes were usually reported. Most of the trials were planned for estimated enrolment assuming no adaptation would be triggered. This is despite the fact a third of reported trials changed their sample size. The sample size calculation was generally well reported, but the justification of sample size calculation parameters and the reporting of the statistical behaviour of the adaptive design could still be improved.

Target-Driven Tissue-Agnostic Drug Approvals-A New Path of Drug Development

The regulatory approvals of tumor-agnostic therapies have led to the re-evaluation of the drug development process. The conventional models of drug development are histology-based. On the other hand, the tumor-agnostic drug development of a new drug (or combination) focuses on targeting a common genomic biomarker in multiple cancers, regardless of histology. The basket-like clinical trials with multiple cohorts allow clinicians to evaluate pan-cancer efficacy and toxicity. There are currently eight tumor agnostic approvals granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This includes two immune checkpoint inhibitors, and five targeted therapy agents. Pembrolizumab is an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibody that was the first FDA-approved tumor-agnostic treatment for unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) solid tumors in 2017. It was later approved for tumor mutational burden-high (TMB-H) solid tumors, although the TMB cut-off used is still debated. Subsequently, in 2021, another anti-PD-1 antibody, dostarlimab, was also approved for dMMR solid tumors in the refractory setting. Patients with fusion-positive cancers are typically difficult to treat due to their rare prevalence and distribution. Gene rearrangements or fusions are present in a variety of tumors. Neurotrophic tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusions are present in a range of pediatric and adult solid tumors in varying frequency. Larotrectinib and entrectinib were approved for neurotrophic tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusion-positive cancers. Similarly, selpercatinib was approved for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive solid tumors. The FDA approved the first combination therapy of dabrafenib, a B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) inhibitor, plus trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitor for patients 6 months or older with unresectable or metastatic tumors (except colorectal cancer) carrying a BRAFV600E mutation. The most recent FDA tumor-agnostic approval is of fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-Dxd) for HER2-positive solid tumors. It is important to identify and expeditiously develop drugs that have the potential to provide clinical benefit across tumor types.

Advancing non-small cell lung cancer treatment: the power of combination immunotherapies

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an unsolved challenge in oncology, signifying a substantial global health burden. While considerable progress has been made in recent years through the emergence of immunotherapy modalities, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), monotherapies often yield limited clinical outcomes. The rationale behind combining various immunotherapeutic or other anticancer agents, the mechanistic underpinnings, and the clinical evidence supporting their utilization is crucial in NSCLC therapy. Regarding the synergistic potential of combination immunotherapies, this study aims to provide insights to help the landscape of NSCLC treatment and improve clinical outcomes. In addition, this review article discusses the challenges and considerations of combination regimens, including toxicity management and patient selection.

Generalized triple outcome decision-making in basket trials

Making the go/no-go decision is critical in Phase II (or Ib) clinical trials. The conventional decision-making framework based on a binary hypothesis testing has been gradually replaced by the TODeM (Triple Outcome Decision-Making) which has three zones of outcomes: go, no-go, and consider. The TODeM provides more flexibility in decision-making with considering both of statistical significance and clinical relevance. However, Bayesian methods (e.g. EXNEX, MUCE, etc.) for the information borrowing are still based on the binary decision-making framework. We propose a new decision-making process G-TODeM (Generalized Triple Outcome Decision-Making) to apply those Bayesian methods with information borrowing across different cohorts to the TODeM framework. Essentially, the information borrowed from other cohorts can shrink the consider zone of the inference cohort.

Inflammation across tissues: can shared cell biology help design smarter trials?

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are responsible for substantial global disease burden and associated health-care costs. Traditional models of research and service delivery silo their management within organ-based medical disciplines. Very often patients with disease in one organ have comorbid involvement in another, suggesting shared pathogenic pathways. Moreover, different IMIDs are often treated with the same drugs (including glucocorticoids, immunoregulators and biologics). Unlocking the cellular basis of these diseases remains a major challenge, leading us to ask why, if these diseases have so much in common, they are not investigated in a common manner. A tissue-based, cellular understanding of inflammation might pave the way for cross-disease, cross-discipline basket trials (testing one drug across two or more diseases) to reduce the risk of failure of early-phase drug development in IMIDs. This new approach will enable rapid assessment of the efficacy of new therapeutic agents in cross-disease translational research in humans.

DKK1 is a predictive biomarker for response to DKN-01: Results of a phase 2 basket study in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma

PURPOSE

Dickkopf-1 (DKK1) is a Wnt signaling modulator promoting tumor growth, metastasis, angiogenesis, and immunosuppression by regulating innate immunity. DKK1 is over-expressed in gynecologic cancers and is associated with shortened survival. DKN-01 is a humanized monoclonal antibody with DKK1 neutralizing activity that may provide clinical benefit to patients whose tumors have overexpression of DKK1 or Wnt genetic alterations.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, Phase 2 basket study with 2-stage design in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and platinum-resistant/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. DKN-01 was administered either as monotherapy or in combination with weekly paclitaxel at investigator's discretion. All patients underwent NGS testing prior to enrollment; tumor tissue was also tested for DKK1 expression by RNAscope pre-treatment and after cycle 1 if available. At least 50% of patients were required to have a Wnt signaling alteration either directly or tangentially. This publication reports results from the EC population overall and by DKK1-expression.

RESULTS

DKN-01 monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel was more effective in patients with high DKK1-expressing tumors compared to low-expressing tumors. DKN-01 monotherapy demonstrated an objective response rate [ORR] of 25.0% vs. 0%; disease control rate [DCR] of 62.5% vs. 6.7%; median progression-free survival [PFS] was 4.3 vs. 1.8 months, and overall survival [OS] was 11.0 vs. 8.2 months in DKK1-high vs DKK1-low patients. Similarly, DKN-01 in combination with paclitaxel demonstrated greater clinical activity in patients with DKK1-high tumors compared to DKK1-low tumors: DCR was 55% vs. 44%; median PFS was 5.4 vs. 1.8 months; and OS was 19.1 vs. 10.1 months. Wnt activating mutations correlated with higher DKK1 expression. DKN-01 was well tolerated as a monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, data demonstrates promising clinical activity of a well-tolerated drug, DKN-01, in EC patients with high tumoral DKK1 expression which frequently corresponded to the presence of a Wnt activating mutation. Future development will focus on using DKN-01 in DKK1-high EC patients in combination with immunotherapy.

Transarterial chemoembolization with PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus molecular targeted therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (CHANCE001)

There is considerable potential for integrating transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), programmed death-(ligand)1 (PD-[L]1) inhibitors, and molecular targeted treatments (MTT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is necessary to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of TACE combined with PD-(L)1 inhibitors and MTT in real-world situations. In this nationwide, retrospective, cohort study, 826 HCC patients receiving either TACE plus PD-(L)1 blockades and MTT (combination group, n = 376) or TACE monotherapy (monotherapy group, n = 450) were included from January 2018 to May 2021. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to modified RECIST. The secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. We performed propensity score matching approaches to reduce bias between two groups. After matching, 228 pairs were included with a predominantly advanced disease population. Median PFS in combination group was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4-11.0) versus 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.6-9.5) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.70, P = 0.002). OS and ORR were also significantly higher in combination group (median OS, 19.2 [16.1-27.3] vs. 15.7 months [13.0-20.2]; adjusted HR, 0.63, P = 0.001; ORR, 60.1% vs. 32.0%; P < 0.001). Grade 3/4 adverse events were observed at a rate of 15.8% and 7.5% in combination and monotherapy groups, respectively. Our results suggest that TACE plus PD-(L)1 blockades and MTT could significantly improve PFS, OS, and ORR versus TACE monotherapy for Chinese patients with predominantly advanced HCC in real-world practice, with an acceptable safety profile.

Of some innovations in clinical trial design in hematology and oncology

The design of clinical trials, formalized in the immediate post-war period, has undergone major changes due to therapeutic innovations, particularly the arrival of targeted therapies in onco-hematology. The traditional phase I-II-III regimen is regularly questioned and multiple adaptations are proposed. This article proposes to expose some of these modifications and the issues they lead to.

How to optimize the incorporation of immunotherapy in trials for oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are considered as a subgroup of metastatic NSCLC that can obtain long-term survival or even cure. Oligometastatic refers to a state of a limited number of metastases in a limited number of organs. In clinical guidelines it is stated that patients with oligometastatic NSCLC can benefit from the addition of local radical therapy (LRT) to systemic therapy. With the introduction of minimally invasive surgery, advances in interventional radiology and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), LRT is becoming feasible for more and more patients. Furthermore, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the treatment landscape of advanced NSCLC has improved the survival of these patients. Importantly, the use of ICI in combination with LRT is also of interest in the subgroup of NSCLC patients with OMD. For example, it has been suggested that SRT may synergize with ICI as several preclinical studies reported an increased tumor antigen release, improved antigen presentation, and T-cell infiltration in irradiated tumors. In this narrative review, we describe the current evidence of immunotherapy treatment in OMD NSCLC, with a focus on future trial design and problems that need to be addressed.

Modern Challenges for Early-Phase Clinical Trial Design and Biomarker Discovery in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Oncology research has changed extensively due to the possibility to categorize each cancer type into smaller subgroups based on histology and particularly on different genetic alterations due to their heterogeneity. The consequences of this heterogeneity are particularly evident in the management of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This review will discuss the benefits and challenges of incorporating precision medicine into early- through late-phase metastatic NSCLC clinical trials, discussing examples of drug development programs in oncogene- and non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC. The experiences of clinical development of crizotinib, gefitinib and osimertinib are depicted showing that when a targeted drug is administrated in a study population not selected by any biomarker, trials could produce negative results. However, the early detection of biomarker-driven biology helps to obtain a greater benefit for a selected population and can reduce the required time for drug approval. Early clinical development programs involving nivolumab, pembrolizumab and avelumab, immune checkpoint inhibitors, taught us that, beyond safety and activity, the optimal selection of patients should be based on pre-specified biomarkers. Overall, the identification of predictive biomarkers is one of the greatest challenges of NSCLC research that should be optimized with solid methodological trial designs to maximize the clinical outcomes.

Immunotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a review of literature data

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive cancer of the pleural surface, associated with asbestos exposure, whose incidence is still growing in some areas of the world. MPM is still considered a rare and an orphan disease with an unchanged median overall survival (OS) ranging from 8 to 14 months and no treatment advances in the last 15 years both in local and advanced disease. In the recent years, chronic inflammation of the mesothelium together with local tumor suppression plays a major role in the malignant transformation. Also, significant heterogeneity in both tumor and the microenvironment is at the basis of MPM biology. Preclinical data have demonstrated the immunogenicity and the lack of an effective antitumor response by the immune system in MPM thus paving the way to the development of immune therapeutics in this disease. Still there is no clear evidence of any predictive biomarker so that, given the close interaction between the immune infiltrate and mesothelial cells, a number of trials are ongoing to investigate the role and prognostic value of the immune microenvironment. In this review we summarize the rationale for immune therapeutics development in MPM, as well as, the relevant literature and ongoing trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vaccines used as both first-line treatment and beyond.

Effect size estimates from umbrella designs: Handling patients with a positive test result for multiple biomarkers using random or pragmatic subtrial allocation

Umbrella trials have been suggested to increase trial conduct efficiency when investigating different biomarker-driven experimental therapies. An overarching platform is used for patient screening and subsequent subtrial allocation according to patients’ biomarker status. Two subtrial allocation schemes for patients with a positive test result for multiple biomarkers are (i) the pragmatic allocation to the eligible subtrial with the currently fewest included patients and (ii) the random allocation to one of the eligible subtrials. Obviously, the subtrials compete for such patients which are consequently underrepresented in the subtrials. To address questions of the impact of an umbrella design in general as well as with respect to subtrial allocation and analysis method, we investigate an umbrella trial with two parallel group subtrials and discuss generalisations. First, we analytically quantify the impact of the umbrella design with random allocation on the number of patients needed to be screened, the biomarker status distribution and treatment effect estimates compared to the corresponding gold standard of an independent parallel group design. Using simulations and real data, we subsequently compare both allocation schemes and investigate weighted linear regression modelling as possible analysis method for the umbrella design. Our results show that umbrella designs are more efficient than the gold standard. However, depending on the biomarker status distribution in the disease population, an umbrella design can introduce differences in estimated treatment effects in the presence of an interaction between treatment and biomarker status. In principle, weighted linear regression together with the random allocation scheme can address this difference though it is difficult to assess if such an approach is applicable in practice. In any case, caution is required when using treatment effect estimates derived from umbrella designs for e.g. future trial planning or meta-analyses.

Challenges and shifting paradigms in clinical trials in oncology: the case for immunological and targeted therapies

The advent of immunotherapy has undoubtedly changed the current standard for cancer treatment. Immunotherapy offers the possibility of achieving excellent results—a new alternative for patients with advanced-stage or relapsed disease. Nowadays, the progress made in tumour biology has led to multiple advances in clinical and translational cancer research. Many oncogenic pathways responsible for tumour growth and metastases have been described and, consequently, multiple new cancer therapeutic agents have been developed and are under current investigation. Due to this rapid increase in knowledge and pharmaceutical development, traditional clinical trials designs have encountered major limitations. The pharmacological differences (in toxicity profiles and effectiveness patterns) between immunotherapy and chemotherapy have caused traditional clinical trials to evolve in order to meet this emerging need. This review focuses on the different options pertaining to clinical trial design that have arisen in the field of immuno-oncology, as well as the challenges of accurately interpreting traditional survival analyses within this novel area of cancer medicine.

Design and Endpoints of Clinical Trials, Current and Future

With the advent of several new systemic agents for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and the prospect of more to come it is expected that many more clinical trials will be undertaken to establish the best treatment paradigm(s). In order to help develop the most efficient and most relevant clinical trials this review concentrates on endpoints that have been used in the past. Survival is the gold standard. None of the surrogate endpoints correspond completely with survival. In addition, alternative clinical trial designs are presented that may be more efficient than the usual phase I, II, and III clinical trial strategy that has been used in the past.

New clinical trial designs in the era of precision medicine

Cancer treatment has made significant strides towards the promise of personalized medicine. Recent scientific advances have shown that there are numerous genetic deregulations that are common in multiple cancer types, raising the possibility of developing drugs targeting those deregulations irrespective of the tumour type. Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM) was born out of accumulated evidence matching targeted agents with these tumour molecular deregulations. At the same time, the therapeutic armamentarium is rapidly increasing and the number of new drugs (including immune-oncology agents) entering drug development continues to rise. These factors, added to strong collaboration with regulatory agencies, which have approved novel agents based on data obtained from phase 1/2 trials, have led to unprecedented evolution in the design of early-stage clinical trials. Currently, we have seen rapid phase 1 dose-escalation trials followed by remarkably large expansion cohorts, and are witnessing the emergence of new trials, such as adaptive studies with basket and umbrella designs aimed at optimizing the biomarker-drug co-development process. Alongside the growing complexity of these clinical trials, new frameworks for stronger and faster collaboration between all stakeholders in drug development, including academic institutions and frameworks, clinicians, pharma companies and regulatory agencies, have been established. In this review article, we describe the main challenges and opportunities that these new trial designs may provide for a more efficient drug development process, which may ultimately help ensure that PCM becomes a reality for patients.

Seamless Designs: Current Practice and Considerations for Early-Phase Drug Development in Oncology

Traditionally, drug development has evaluated dose, safety, activity, and comparative benefit in a sequence of phases using trial designs and endpoints specifically devised for each phase. Innovations in drug development seek to consolidate the phases and rapidly expand accrual with "seamless" trial designs. Although consolidation and rapid accrual may yield efficiencies, widespread use of seamless first-in-human (FiH) trials without careful consideration of objectives, statistical analysis plans, or trial oversight raises concerns. A working group formed by the National Cancer Institute convened to consider and discuss opportunities and challenges for such trials as well as encourage responsible use of these designs. We reviewed all abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings from 2010 to 2017 for FiH trials enrolling at least 100 patients. We identified 1786 early-phase trials enrolling 57 559 adult patients. Fifty-one of the trials (2.9%) investigated 50 investigational new drugs, were seamless, and accounted for 14.6% of the total patients. The seamless trials included a median of 3 (range = 1-13) expansion cohorts. The overall risk of clinically significant treatment-related adverse events (grade 3-4) was 49.1% (range = 0.0-100%), and seven studies reported at least one toxic death. Rapid expansion of FiH trials may lead to earlier drug approval and corresponding widespread patient access to active therapeutics. Nevertheless, seamless designs must adhere to established ethical, scientific, and statistical standards. Protocols should include prospectively planned analyses of efficacy in disease- or biomarker-defined cohorts of sufficient rigor to support accelerated approval.

Master protocol trials in oncology: Review and new trial designs

In oncology, next generation sequencing and comprehensive genomic profiling have enabled the detailed classification of tumors using molecular biology. However, it is unrealistic to conduct phase I-III trials according to each sub-population based on patient molecular subtypes. Common protocols that assess the combination of several molecular markers and their targeted therapies by means of multiple sub-studies are required. These protocols are called "master protocols," and are drawing attention as a next-generation clinical trial design. Recently, several reviews of clinical trials based on the master protocol design have been published, but their definitions of these such trials, including basket, umbrella, and platform trials, were not consistent. Concurrently, the acceleration of the development of new statistical designs for master protocol trials has been underway. This article provides an overview of recent reviews for master protocols, including their statistical design methodologies in Oncology. We also introduce several examples of previous and on-going master protocol trials along with their classifications by some recent studies.

Biomarker Clinical Trials in Lung Cancer: Design, Logistics, Challenges, and Practical Considerations

Treatment for lung cancer has evolved in the past 3 decades starting with platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, regardless of histology, in the early 1990s to the current age of biomarker-driven therapy. Consequently, clinical trials in lung cancer have evolved in response to this new shift of paradigm, leading to novel approaches that simultaneously shorten the development process and allow evaluation of multiple patient cohorts. Herein, we provide an overview of the landscape of lung cancer clinical trials in the era of targeted therapies, precision medicine, and biomarkers. Specific trials are given as examples to illustrate the design paradigms. The paper is organized by drug development phases starting with early-phase biomarker discovery to proof-of-concept trials to definitive trials. We also present some thoughts on future directions.

Impact of Biomarker-based Design Strategies on the Risk of False-Positive Findings in Targeted Therapy Evaluation

PURPOSE

When there is more than one potentially predictive biomarker for a new drug, the drug is often evaluated in different subpopulations defined by different biomarkers. We aim to (i) estimate the risk of false-positive findings with this approach and (ii) evaluate the cross-validated adaptive signature design (CVASD) as a potential alternative.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

By using numerically simulated data, we compare the current approach and the CVASD across different settings and scenarios. We consider three strategies for CVASD. The first two CVASD strategies are different in terms of the partitioning of the overall significance level (between the population test and the subgroup test). In the third CVASD strategy, the order of the two tests is reversed, that is, the population test is realized when the prioritized subgroup test is not statistically significant.

RESULTS

The current approach results in a high risk of false-positive findings, whereas this risk is close to the nominal level of 5% once applying the CVASD, regardless of the strategy. When the treatment is equally effective to all patients, only the CVASD strategies could specify correctly the absence of a sensitive subgroup. When the treatment is only effective for some sensitive responders, the third CVASD strategy stands out by its ability to correctly identify the predictive biomarker(s).

CONCLUSIONS

The drug-biomarker coevaluation based on a series of independent enrichment trials can result in a high risk of false-positive findings. CVASD with some appropriate adjustments can be a good alternative to overcome this multiplicity issue.

Adaptive metabolic pattern biomarker for disease monitoring and staging of lung cancer with liquid biopsy

In this manuscript, we demonstrate the applicability of a metabolic liquid biopsy for the monitoring and staging of patients with lung cancer. This method provides an unbiased detection strategy to establish a more precise correlation between CTC quantification and the actual burden of disease, therefore improving the accuracy of staging based on current imaging techniques. Also, by applying statistical analysis techniques and probabilistic models to the metabolic status and distribution of peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) populations "perturbed" by the presence of CTCs, a new category of adaptive metabolic pattern biomarker (AMPB) is described and unambiguously correlated to the different clinical stages of the patients. In fact, this strategy allows for classification of different categories of disease within a single stage (stage IV) before computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans and with lower uncertainty.

Highlighting the need for reliable clinical trials in glioblastoma

INTRODUCTION

Several recent phase III studies have attempted to improve the dismal survival seen in glioblastoma patients, with disappointing results despite prior promising phase II data. Areas covered: A literature review of prior phase II and phase III studied in glioblastoma was performed to help identify possible areas of concern. Numerous issues in previous phase II trials for glioblastoma were found that may have contributed to these discouraging outcomes and discordant results. Expert commentary: These concerns include the improper selection of therapeutics warranting investigation in a phase III trial, suboptimal design of phase II studies (often lacking a control arm), absence of molecular data, the use of imaging criteria as a surrogate endpoint, and a lack of pharmacodynamic testing. Hopefully, by recognizing prior phase II trial limitations that contributed to failed phase III trials, we can adapt quickly to improve our ability to accurately discover survival-prolonging treatments for glioblastoma patients.

AMCP Partnership Forum: Managing Care in the Wave of Precision Medicine

Precision medicine, the customization of health care to an individual's genetic profile while accounting for biomarkers and lifestyle, has increasingly been adopted by health care stakeholders to guide the development of treatment options, improve treatment decision making, provide more patient-centered care, and better inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Despite these benefits, key challenges prevent its broader use and adoption. On December 7-8, 2017, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy convened a group of stakeholders to discuss these challenges and provide recommendations to facilitate broader adoption and use of precision medicine across health care settings. These stakeholders represented the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, patient advocacy, private payers, device manufacturers, health analytics, information technology, academia, and government agencies. Throughout the 2-day forum, participants discussed evidence requirements for precision medicine, including consistent ways to measure the utility and validity of precision medicine tests and therapies, limitations of traditional clinical trial designs, and limitations of value assessment framework methods. They also highlighted the challenges with evidence collection and data silos in precision medicine. Interoperability within and across health systems is hindering clinical advancements. Current medical coding systems also cannot account for the heterogeneity of many diseases, preventing health systems from having a complete understanding of their patient population to inform resource allocation. Challenges faced by payers, such as evidence limitations, to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions in precision medicine, as well as legal and regulatory barriers that inhibit more widespread data sharing, were also identified. While a broad range of perspectives was shared throughout the forum, participants reached consensus across 2 overarching areas. First, there is a greater need for common definitions, thresholds, and standards to guide evidence generation in precision medicine. Second, current information silos are preventing the sharing of valuable data. Collaboration among stakeholders is needed to support better information sharing, awareness, and education of precision medicine for patients. The recommendations brought forward by this diverse group of experts provide a set of solutions to spur widespread use and application of precision medicine. Taken together, successful adoption and use of precision medicine will require input and collaboration from all sectors of health care, especially patients. DISCLOSURES This AMCP Partnership Forum and the development of the proceedings document were supported by Amgen, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, MedImpact, National Pharmaceutical Council, Precision for Value, Sanofi, Takeda, and Xcenda.

AMCP Partnership Forum: Managing Care in the Wave of Precision Medicine

Precision medicine, the customization of health care to an individual's genetic profile while accounting for biomarkers and lifestyle, has increasingly been adopted by health care stakeholders to guide the development of treatment options, improve treatment decision making, provide more patient-centered care, and better inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Despite these benefits, key challenges prevent its broader use and adoption. On December 7-8, 2017, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy convened a group of stakeholders to discuss these challenges and provide recommendations to facilitate broader adoption and use of precision medicine across health care settings. These stakeholders represented the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, patient advocacy, private payers, device manufacturers, health analytics, information technology, academia, and government agencies. Throughout the 2-day forum, participants discussed evidence requirements for precision medicine, including consistent ways to measure the utility and validity of precision medicine tests and therapies, limitations of traditional clinical trial designs, and limitations of value assessment framework methods. They also highlighted the challenges with evidence collection and data silos in precision medicine. Interoperability within and across health systems is hindering clinical advancements. Current medical coding systems also cannot account for the heterogeneity of many diseases, preventing health systems from having a complete understanding of their patient population to inform resource allocation. Challenges faced by payers, such as evidence limitations, to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions in precision medicine, as well as legal and regulatory barriers that inhibit more widespread data sharing, were also identified. While a broad range of perspectives was shared throughout the forum, participants reached consensus across 2 overarching areas. First, there is a greater need for common definitions, thresholds, and standards to guide evidence generation in precision medicine. Second, current information silos are preventing the sharing of valuable data. Collaboration among stakeholders is needed to support better information sharing, awareness, and education of precision medicine for patients. The recommendations brought forward by this diverse group of experts provide a set of solutions to spur widespread use and application of precision medicine. Taken together, successful adoption and use of precision medicine will require input and collaboration from all sectors of health care, especially patients. DISCLOSURES This AMCP Partnership Forum and the development of the proceedings document were supported by Amgen, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, MedImpact, National Pharmaceutical Council, Precision for Value, Sanofi, Takeda, and Xcenda.

Do immune checkpoint inhibitors need new studies methodology?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have widely reshaped the treatment paradigm of advanced cancer patients. Although multiple studies are currently evaluating these drugs as monotherapies or in combination, the choice of the most accurate statistical methods, endpoints and clinical trial designs to estimate the benefit of ICI remains an unsolved methodological issue. Considering the unconventional patterns of response or progression [i.e., pseudoprogression, hyperprogression (HPD)] observed with ICI, the application in clinical trials of novel response assessment tools (i.e., iRECIST) able to capture delayed benefit of immunotherapies and/or to quantify tumor dynamics and kinetics over time is an unmet clinical need. In addition, the proportional hazard model and the conventional measures of survival [i.e., median overall or progression free survival (PFS) and hazard ratios (HR)] might usually result inadequate in the estimation of the long-term benefit observed with ICI. For this reason, innovative methodologies such as milestone analysis, restricted mean survival time (RMST), parametric models (i.e., Weibull distribution, weighted log rank test), should be systematically investigated in clinical trials in order to adequately quantify the fraction of patients who are "cured", represented by the tails of the survival curves. Regarding predictive biomarkers, in particular PD-L1 expression, the integration and harmonization of the existing assays are urgently needed to provide clinicians with reliable diagnostic tests and to improve patient selection for immunotherapy. Finally, developing original and high-quality study designs, such as adaptive or basket biomarker enriched clinical trials, included in large collaborative platforms with multiple active sites and cross-sector collaboration, represents the successful strategy to optimally assess the benefit of ICI in the next future.

Landscape of Actionable Genetic Alterations Profiled from 1,071 Tumor Samples in Korean Cancer Patients

Purpose

With the emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, profiling a wide range of genomic alterations has become a possibility resulting in improved implementation of targeted cancer therapy. In Asian populations, the prevalence and spectrum of clinically actionable genetic alterations has not yet been determined because of a lack of studies examining high-throughput cancer genomic data.

Materials and Methods

To address this issue, 1,071 tumor samples were collected from five major cancer institutes in Korea and analyzed using targeted NGS at a centralized laboratory. Samples were either fresh frozen or formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) and the quality and yield of extracted genomic DNA was assessed. In order to estimate the effect of sample condition on the quality of sequencing results, tissue preparation method, specimen type (resected or biopsied) and tissue storage time were compared.

Results

We detected 7,360 non-synonymous point mutations, 1,164 small insertions and deletions, 3,173 copy number alterations, and 462 structural variants. Fifty-four percent of tumors had one or more clinically relevant genetic mutation. The distribution of actionable variants was variable among different genes. Fresh frozen tissues, surgically resected specimens, and recently obtained specimens generated superior sequencing results over FFPE tissues, biopsied specimens, and tissues with long storage duration.

Conclusion

In order to overcome, challenges involved in bringing NGS testing into routine clinical use, a centralized laboratory model was designed that could improve the NGS workflows, provide appropriate turnaround times and control costs with goal of enabling precision medicine.

Unique characteristics of regulatory approval and pivotal studies of orphan anticancer drugs in Japan

The approval of orphan anticancer drugs has increased, with the number exceeding that of non-orphan drugs in Japan in recent years. Although orphan anticancer drugs may have unique characteristics due to their rarity, these have not been fully characterized. We investigated anticancer drugs approved in Japan between April 2004 and November 2017 to reveal the characteristics of regulatory approval and pivotal studies on orphan anticancer drugs compared to non-orphan drugs. The median regulatory review time and number of patients in pivotal studies on orphan anticancer drugs (281.0 days [interquartile range, 263.3-336.0]; 222.5 patients [66.0-454.3]) were significantly lower than those on non-orphan drugs (353.0 days [277.0-535.5]; 521.0 patients [303.5-814.5], respectively) (P < 0.001). Phase II, non-randomized and non-controlled designs were more frequently used in pivotal studies on orphan anticancer drugs (45.9%, 41.9% and 43.2%) than non-orphan drugs (17.2%, 14.1% and 14.1%, respectively). Response rate was more commonly used as a primary endpoint in pivotal studies on orphan anticancer drugs (48.6%) than non-orphan drugs (17.2%). Indications limited by molecular features, second or later treatment line, and accelerated approval in the United States were associated with the use of response rate in orphan anticancer drug studies. In conclusion, we demonstrated that orphan anticancer drugs in Japan have unique characteristics compared to non-orphan drugs: shorter regulatory review and pivotal studies frequently using phase II, non-randomized, or non-controlled designs and response rate as a primary endpoint, with fewer patients.

High-throughput detection of clinically targetable alterations using next-generation sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized the therapeutic care of patients by allowing high-throughput and parallel sequencing of large numbers of genes in a single run. However, most of available commercialized cancer panels target a large number of mutations that do not have direct therapeutic implications and that are not fully adapted to low quality formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. Here, we designed an amplicon-based NGS panel assay of 16 currently actionable genes according to the most recent recommendations of the French National Cancer Institute (NCI). We developed a panel of short amplicons (<150 bp) using dual-strand library preparation. The clinical validation of this panel was performed on well-characterized controls and 140 routine diagnostic samples, including highly degraded and cross-linked genomic DNA extracted from FFPE tumor samples. All mutations were detected with elevated inter-laboratory and inter-run reproducibility. Importantly, we could detect clinically actionable alterations in FFPE samples with variant allele frequencies as low as 1%. In addition, the overall molecular diagnosis rate was increased from 40.7% with conventional techniques to 59.2% with our NGS panel, including 41 novel actionable alterations normally not explored by conventional techniques. Taken together, we believe that this new actionable target panel represents a relevant, highly scalable and robust tool that is easy to implement and is fully adapted to daily clinical practice in hospital and academic laboratories.

Using EEG-Guided Basket and Umbrella Trials in Psychiatry: A Precision Medicine Approach for Cognitive Impairment in Schizophrenia

Due to advances over the last several decades, many fields of medicine are moving toward a precision medicine approach where treatments are tailored to nuanced patient factors. While in some disciplines these innovations are commonplace leading to unique biomarker-guided experimental medicine trials, there are no such analogs in psychiatry. In this brief review, we will overview two unique biomarker-guided trial designs for future use in psychiatry: basket and umbrella trials. We will illustrate how such trials could be useful in psychiatry using schizophrenia as a candidate illness, the EEG measure mismatch negativity as the candidate biomarker, and cognitive impairment as the target disease dimension.

Imaging approaches to optimize molecular therapies

Imaging, including its use for innovative tissue sampling, is slowly being recognized as playing a pivotal role in drug development, clinical trial design, and more effective delivery and monitoring of molecular therapies. The challenge is that, while a considerable number of new imaging technologies and new targeted tracers have been developed for cancer imaging in recent years, the technologies are neither evenly distributed nor evenly implemented. Furthermore, many imaging innovations are not validated and are not ready for widespread use in drug development or in clinical trial designs. Inconsistent and often erroneous use of terminology related to quantitative imaging biomarkers has also played a role in slowing their development and implementation. We examine opportunities for, and challenges of, the use of imaging biomarkers to facilitate development of molecular therapies and to accelerate progress in clinical trial design. In the future, in vivo molecular imaging, image-guided tissue sampling for mutational analyses ("high-content biopsies"), and noninvasive in vitro tests ("liquid biopsies") will likely be used in various combinations to provide the best possible monitoring and individualized treatment plans for cancer patients.

Pharmacogenomic considerations in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Recent advances in next-generation sequencing techniques have greatly improved our understanding of the genomic alterations in bladder cancer. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a viable treatment option in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic setting in a selected group of patients, but chemoresistance is a major problem. The underlying mechanisms of treatment resistance are poorly understood and elucidating these pathways will subsequently lead to improved patient selection, less unnecessary drug-related toxicity, improved patient outcome and decreased healthcare costs. This review provides an overview of mechanisms of chemoresistance and describes the current knowledge on how the genomic landscape influences therapy outcome in muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients.

An efficient basket trial design

The landscape for early phase cancer clinical trials is changing dramatically because of the advent of targeted therapy. Increasingly, new drugs are designed to work against a target such as the presence of a specific tumor mutation. Because typically only a small proportion of cancer patients will possess the mutational target, but the mutation is present in many different cancers, a new class of basket trials is emerging, whereby the drug is tested simultaneously in different baskets, that is, subgroups of different tumor types. Investigators desire not only to test whether the drug works but also to determine which types of tumors are sensitive to the drug. A natural strategy is to conduct parallel trials, with the drug 's effectiveness being tested separately, using for example, the popular Simon two-stage design independently in each basket. The work presented is motivated by the premise that the efficiency of this strategy can be improved by assessing the homogeneity of the baskets ' response rates at an interim analysis and aggregating the baskets in the second stage if the results suggest the drug might be effective in all or most baskets. Via simulations, we assess the relative efficiencies of the two strategies. Because the operating characteristics depend on how many tumor types are sensitive to the drug, there is no uniformly efficient strategy. However, our investigation demonstrates that substantial efficiencies are possible if the drug works in most or all baskets, at the cost of modest losses of power if the drug works in only a single basket. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: basket trials, umbrella trials, and other master protocols: a review and examples

In recent years, cancers once viewed as relatively homogeneous in terms of organ location and treatment strategy are now better understood to be increasingly heterogeneous across biomarker and genetically defined patient subgroups. This has produced a shift toward development of biomarker-targeted agents during a time when funding for cancer research has been limited; as a result, the need for improved operational efficiency in studying many agent-and-target combinations in parallel has emerged. Platform trials, basket trials, and umbrella trials are new approaches to clinical research driven by this need for enhanced efficiency in the modern era of increasingly specific cancer subpopulations and decreased resources to study treatments for individual cancer subtypes in a traditional way. In this review, we provide an overview of these new types of clinical trial designs, including discussions of motivation for their use, recommended terminology, examples, and challenges encountered in their application.

Comparing a stratified treatment strategy with the standard treatment in randomized clinical trials

The increasing emergence of predictive markers for different treatments in the same patient population allows us to define stratified treatment strategies. We consider randomized clinical trials that compare a standard treatment with a new stratified treatment strategy that divides the study population into subgroups receiving different treatments. Because the new strategy may not be beneficial in all subgroups, we consider in this paper an intermediate approach that establishes a treatment effect in a subset of patients built by joining several subgroups. The approach is based on the simple idea of selecting the subset with minimal p-value when testing the subset-specific treatment effects. We present a framework to compare this approach with other approaches to select subsets by introducing three performance measures. The results of a comprehensive simulation study are presented, and the relative merits of the various approaches are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PIPELINEs: Creating Comparable Clinical Knowledge Efficiently by Linking Trial Platforms

Adaptive, seamless, multisponsor, multitherapy clinical trial designs executed as large scale platforms, could create superior evidence more efficiently than single-sponsor, single-drug trials. These trial PIPELINEs also could diminish barriers to trial participation, increase the representation of real-world populations, and create systematic evidence development for learning throughout a therapeutic life cycle, to continually refine its use. Comparable evidence could arise from multiarm design, shared comparator arms, and standardized endpoints-aiding sponsors in demonstrating the distinct value of their innovative medicines; facilitating providers and patients in selecting the most appropriate treatments; assisting regulators in efficacy and safety determinations; helping payers make coverage and reimbursement decisions; and spurring scientists with translational insights. Reduced trial times and costs could enable more indications, reduced development cycle times, and improved system financial sustainability. Challenges to overcome range from statistical to operational to collaborative governance and data exchange.

The mixed randomized trial: combining randomized, pragmatic and observational clinical trial designs

Clinical trial designs often fail to deliver data that jointly satisfy evolving demands of both regulatory and reimbursement authorities. We propose a new multi-tiered trial design to integrate efficacy and effectiveness, and address the evolving needs of authorities. The mixed randomized trial allocates patients first to trial arm – randomized controlled, pragmatic (randomized) or observational – and then to treatment group – experimental, placebo, active comparator, best available therapy or standard of care. Trial arms may be staggered over time to reflect the current state of randomized and non-randomized data of the experimental drug, and thereby still prioritize safety. At the same time, the mixed randomized trial allows for the collection of real-world data in a randomized setting, and thereby reduces selection bias.

Combined integrated protocol/basket trial design for a first-in-human trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative trial designs are sought to streamline drug development in rare diseases. Basket- and integrated protocol designs are two of these new strategies and have been applied in a handful oncologic trials. We have taken the concept outside the realm of oncology and report about a first-in-human integrated protocol design that facilitates the transition from phase Ia in healthy volunteers to phase Ib in patients with rare complement-mediated disorders driven by the classical pathway.

RESULTS

We have been conducting a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled first-in-human study with TNT009, which is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the C1s subunit of human complement component C1. The trial consisted of three subparts, including normal healthy volunteers (part one and two) and a single cohort of patients in part three. Patients suffered from various complement-mediated diseases sharing the same pathophysiological mechanism, i.e. bullous pemphigoid, antibody-mediated rejection of organ transplants, cold agglutinin disease and warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Primary objective of the trial has been to evaluate the safety and tolerability of TNT009 in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial provides probably the first example that basket trials may not be limited to single genetic aberrations, which is overly restrictive, but our trial design demonstrates that pathway specificity is a viable paradigm for defining baskets. This will hopefully serve as a role model that could benefit other innovative drug development programs targeting rare diseases.

Advances in targeted therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

The development of proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs has significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM); however, not all patients benefit from treatment with these agents and some patients can become drug refractory over time. Due to the largely incurable nature of multiple myeloma, the development of newer agents is ongoing and includes new oral PIs (ixazomib), immunotherapies (e.g., CD38- or SLAMF7-targeted antibodies), and small molecules. This review provides an overview of the advances in targeted therapy for patients with RRMM, including recently approved agents, with a focus on monotherapy and combined targeted therapies.

Synthesis and biological evaluation of new aryl-alkyl(alkenyl)-4-benzylpiperidines, novel Sigma Receptor (SR) modulators, as potential anticancer-agents

In the early 2000s, the Sigma Receptor (SR) family was identified as potential "druggable" target in cancer treatment. Indeed, high density of SRs was found in breast, lung, and prostate cancer cells, supporting the idea that SRs could play a role in tumor growth and progression. Moreover, a link between the degree of SR expression and tumor aggressiveness has been postulated, justified by the presence of SRs in high metastatic-potential cancer cells. As a consequence, considerable efforts have been devoted to the development of small molecules endowed with good affinity towards the two SR subtypes (S1R and S2R) with potential anticancer activity. Herein, we report the synthesis and biological profile of aryl-alkyl(alkenyl)-4-benzylpiperidine derivatives - as novel potential anticancer drugs targeting SR. Among them, 3 (RC-106) exhibited a preclinical profile of antitumor efficacy on a panel of cell lines representative of different cancer types (i.e. Paca3, MDA-MB 231) expressing both SRs, and emerged as a hit compound of a new class of SR modulators potentially useful for the treatment of cancer disease.

The Urgent Need for Clinical Research Reform to Permit Faster, Less Expensive Access to New Therapies for Lethal Diseases

High costs of complying with drug development regulations slow progress and contribute to high drug prices and, hence, mounting health care costs. If it is exorbitantly expensive to bring new therapies to approval, fewer agents can be developed with available resources, impeding the emergence of urgently needed treatments and escalating prices by limiting competition. Excessive regulation produces numerous speed bumps on the road to drug authorization. Although an explosion of knowledge could fuel rapid advances, progress has been slowed worldwide by inefficient regulatory and clinical research systems that limit access to therapies that prolong life and relieve suffering. We must replace current compliance-centered regulation (appropriate for nonlethal diseases like acne) with "progress-centered regulation" in lethal diseases, where the overarching objective must be rapid, inexpensive development of effective new therapies. We need to (i) reduce expensive, time-consuming preclinical toxicology and pharmacology assessments, which add little value; (ii) revamp the clinical trial approval process to make it fast and efficient; (iii) permit immediate multiple-site trial activation when an eligible patient is identified ("just-in-time" activation); (iv) reduce the requirement for excessive, low-value documentation; (v) replace this excessive documentation with sensible postmarketing surveillance; (vi) develop pragmatic investigator accreditation; (vii) where it is to the benefit of the patient, permit investigators latitude in deviating from protocols, without requiring approved amendments; (viii) confirm the value of predictive biomarkers before requiring the high costs of IDE/CLIA compliance; and (ix) approve agents based on high phase I-II response rates in defined subpopulations, rather than mandating expensive, time-consuming phase III trials.