Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials

Social Characteristics of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Cancer Patients Enrolled in Early Phase Clinical Trials in South Western Sydney

INTRODUCTION

Early phase clinical trials (EPCTs) enable access to novel therapies for patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment and contribute a crucial role in drug development and research. Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) or socially disadvantaged patients have notably lower rates of participation in these trials. We aimed to characterise the social and cultural demographics of patients enrolled on an EPCT in South Western Sydney.

METHODS

We conducted a 10-year retrospective review of patients enrolled on a EPCT at Liverpool Hospital. CALD patients were defined as those born overseas or whose preferred language was other than English. The patient residential address was used to calculate distance travelled, and the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) and Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) scores were calculated and used as a surrogate for socioeconomic status (SES).

RESULTS

Our study included 233 patients across 39 EPCTs. Ninety-one patients (39%) were identified as CALD. The median IRSD and IRSAD scores were 941 and 944, respectively, with 62.7-67.4% of patients residing in an area with greater disadvantage compared to the median of Australia. The median distance travelled was 17 kilometres with only 12% of participants travelling more than 50 km. CALD patients were more likely to reside in an area of low SES (OR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.8-6.5, p < 0.01) and travelled shorter median distances (10 vs. 23 km) when compared to non-CALD patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study cohort contained a lower proportion of CALD patients and a higher SES than what we might have expected from our local population. Furthermore, there was a trend toward greater SES disadvantage (lower IRSD/IRSAD scores) for the CALD population. This study provides novel Australian data to support the underrepresentation of culturally diverse or disadvantaged patients on EPCTs. Future efforts should be made to reduce barriers to participation and improve equity in clinical trial participation.

Dose Finding in Oncology Trials Guided by Ordinal Toxicity Grades Using Continuous Dose Levels

We present a Bayesian adaptive design for dose finding in oncology trials with application to a first-in-human trial. The design is based on the escalation with overdose control principle and uses an intermediate grade 2 toxicity in addition to the traditional binary indicator of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) to guide the dose escalation and de-escalation. We model the dose-toxicity relationship using the proportional odds model. This assumption satisfies an important ethical concern when a potentially toxic drug is first introduced in the clinic; if a patient experiences grade 2 toxicity at the most, then the amount of dose escalation is lower relative to that wherein if this patient experienced a maximum of grade 1 toxicity. This results in a more careful dose escalation. The performance of the design was assessed by deriving the operating characteristics under several scenarios for the true MTD and expected proportions of grade 2 toxicities. In general, the trial design is safe and achieves acceptable efficiency of the estimated MTD for a planned sample size of twenty patients. At the time of writing this manuscript, twelve patients have been enrolled to the trial.

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.

Patients' selection and trial matching in early-phase oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Early-phase clinical trials (EPCT) represent an important part of innovations in medical oncology and a valuable therapeutic option for patients with metastatic cancers, particularly in the era of precision medicine. Nevertheless, adult patients' participation in oncology clinical trials is low, ranging from 2% to 8% worldwide, with unequal access, and up to 40% risk of early discontinuation in EPCT, mostly due to cancer-related complications.

DESIGN

We review the tools and initiatives to increase patients' orientation and access to early phase cancer clinical trials, and to limit early discontinuation.

RESULTS

New approaches to optimize the early-phase clinical trial referring process in oncology include automatic trial matching, tools to facilitate the estimation of patients' prognostic and/or to better predict patients' eligibility to clinical trials. Classical and innovative approaches should be associated to double patient recruitment, improve clinical trial enrollment experience and reduce early discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas EPCT are essential for patients to access the latest medical innovations in oncology, offering the appropriate trial when it is relevant for patients should increase by organizational and technological innovations. The oncologic community will need to closely monitor their performance, portability and simplicity for implementation in daily clinical practice.

Reporting and impact of subsequent cycle toxicities in oncology phase I clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

As oncology treatments evolve, classic assumptions of toxicity associated with cytotoxic agents may be less relevant, requiring new design strategies for trials intended to inform dosing strategies for agents that may be administered beyond a set number of defined cycles. We describe the overall incidence of dose-limiting toxicities during and after cycle 1, frequency of reporting subsequent cycle toxicities, and the impact of post-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities on conclusions drawn from oncology phase 1 clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of subsequent cycle toxicities in oncology phase I clinical trials published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology from 2000 to 2020. We used chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression to describe predictors of reporting subsequent cycle toxicity data.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2020, we identified 489 articles reporting on therapeutic phase 1 clinical trials. Of these, 421 (86%) reported data regarding cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities and 170 (35%) reported data on cycle 1 dose modifications. Of the trials that reported cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities, the median percentage of patients that experienced cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities was 8.89%. Only 47 (9.6%) publications reported on post-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities and only 92 (19%) reported on dose modifications beyond cycle 1. Of the trials that reported post-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities, the median percentage of patients that experienced post-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities was 14.8%. Among the 371 studies with a recommended phase 2 dose, 89% did not report whether post-cycle 1 toxicities impacted the recommended phase 2 dose. More recent year of publication was independently associated with reduced odds of reporting subsequent cycle toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of subsequent cycle toxicity is uncommon in oncology phase I clinical trial publications and becoming less common over time. Guidelines for reporting of phase I oncology clinical trials should expand to include toxicity data beyond the first cycle.

The Requirements of Managing Phase I Clinical Trials Risks: The British and Italian Case Studies

Phase I clinical trials represent a critical point in drug development because the investigational medicinal product is being tested in humans for the first time. For this reason, it is essential to evaluate and identify the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) and the safety of the new compound. To mitigate the possible risks associated with drug administration and treatment, the European Competent Authority issued various guidelines to provide provisions and harmonize risk management processes. In the UK and Italy, particular attention should be paid to the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) phase I accreditation scheme and the specific rules set by the Italian Drug Authority through the AIFA Determination no. 809/2015. Both reference documents are based on the concept of quality risk management while conducting phase I clinical studies. Moreover, the AIFA determination outlines specific requirements for those sites that want to conduct non-profit phase I clinical trials. Indeed, the document reports peculiar activities to the "Clinical Trial Quality Team", which is a team that should support the clinical site researchers in designing, starting, performing, and closing non-profit phase I studies. In this paper, we provide a general overview of the main European guidelines concerning the management of risks during phase I trials, focusing on the main peculiarities of the schemes and rules set by the MHRA and AIFA.

Predicting Phase 1 Lymphoma Clinical Trial Durations Using Machine Learning: An In-Depth Analysis and Broad Application Insights

Lymphoma diagnoses in the US are substantial, with an estimated 89,380 new cases in 2023, necessitating innovative treatment approaches. Phase 1 clinical trials play a pivotal role in this context. We developed a binary predictive model to assess trial adherence to expected average durations, analyzing 1089 completed Phase 1 lymphoma trials from clinicaltrials.gov. Using machine learning, the Random Forest model demonstrated high efficacy with an accuracy of 0.7248 and an ROC-AUC of 0.7677 for lymphoma trials. The difference in the accuracy level of the Random Forest is statistically significant compared to the other alternative models, as determined by a 95% confidence interval on the testing set. Importantly, this model maintained an ROC-AUC of 0.7701 when applied to lung cancer trials, showcasing its versatility. A key insight is the correlation between higher predicted probabilities and extended trial durations, offering nuanced insights beyond binary predictions. Our research contributes to enhanced clinical research planning and potential improvements in patient outcomes in oncology.

Current progress of pig models for liver cancer research

Preclinical trials play critical roles in assessing the safety and efficiency of novel therapeutic strategies for human diseases including live cancer. However, most therapeutic strategies that were proved to be effective in preclinical cancer models failed in human clinical trials due to the lack of appropriate disease animal models. Therefore, it is of importance and urgent to develop a precise animal model for preclinical cancer research. Liver cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers with low 5-year survival rate. Recently, porcine attracted increasing attentions as animal model in biomedical research. Porcine liver cancer model may provide a promising platform for biomedical research due to their similarities to human being in body size, anatomical characteristics, physiology and pathophysiology. In this review, we comprehensively summarized and discussed the advantages and disadvantages, rationale, current status and progress of pig models for liver cancer research.

Profile and outcome of cancer patients enrolled in contemporary phase I trials

BACKGROUND

Phase I trials historically involved heavily pretreated patients (pts) with no more effective therapeutic options available and with poor expected outcomes. There are scare data regarding profile and outcomes of pts enrolled into modern phase I trials. Here, we sought to provide an overview of pts' profile and outcome into phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (GR).

METHODS

This is a monocentric retrospective study, including all pts enrolled into phase I trials at GR from 2017 to 2021. Data regarding pts' demographics, tumour types, investigational treatments and survival outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 9482 pts were referred for early phase trials; 2478 pts were screened, among which 449 (18.1%) failed screening; 1693 pts finally received at least one treatment dose as part of a phase I trial. Median age of pts was 59 years old (range, 18-88) and most common tumour types included gastrointestinal (25.3%), haematological (15%), lung (13.6%), genitourinary (10.5%) and gynaecologic cancers (9.4%). Amongst all pts treated and evaluable for response (1634 pts), objective response rate was 15.9% and disease control rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3; 2.8) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.7; 13.6).

CONCLUSION

As compared with historical data, our study shows that outcomes of pts included into modern phase I trials have improved and that these trials constitute nowadays a valid and safe therapeutic option. These updated data provide facts for adapting the methodology, role and place of phase I trials over the next years.

Clinical results of the EVESOR trial, a multiparameter phase I trial of everolimus and sorafenib combination in solid tumors

PURPOSE

Everolimus (EVE) and sorafenib (SOR) combination was associated with synergistic activity in preclinical models. However, previous clinical studies were hampered by cumulative toxicities when both were given continuously. The academic EVESOR trial (NCT01932177) was designed to assess alternative doses and intermittent dosing schedules of EVE and SOR combination therapy to improve the benefit-risk ratio for patients with solid tumors.

METHODS

EVESOR is a multiparameter dose-escalation phase I trial investigating different doses and dosing schedules, with the final objective of generating data for modeling and simulation. Patients were allocated into continuous (A and B) or intermittent (C and D) schedules to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The clinical outcomes are presented here.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were included from 2013 to 2019. Most of them had gynecological (25.6%), cholangiocarcinomas (23.2%), colorectal (14.0%), and breast cancers (11.6%). Dose-escalation up to EVE 10 mg QD and SOR 400 mg BID was possible on intermittent schedules. Five dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and dose reductions were required in 39.5% patients, stabilizing at EVE 5 mg and SOR 200 mg BID for 58.1% of them. The overall response rate was 6.3%, and disease control rate was 75.0%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The longest median PFS were observed in cholangiocarcinomas (9.9 months), and gynecological adenocarcinomas (9.2 months).

CONCLUSION

Intermittent arms were associated with improved efficacy/toxicity profiles; and EVE 5 mg QD and SOR 200 mg BID was defined a clinically feasible dose. Strong signs of efficacy were found in cholangiocarcinomas and gynecologic carcinomas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for Asian patients in Phase I clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patient selection is key in Phase I studies, and prognosis can be difficult to estimate in heavily pre-treated patients. Previous prognostic models like the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score or using the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have not been validated in current novel therapies nor in the Asian Phase I population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 414 patients with solid tumours participating in Phase I studies at our centre between October 2013 and December 2020.

RESULTS

The RMH model showed poorer prognosis with increasing scores [RMH score 1, HR 1.28 (95% CI: 0.96-1.70); RMH score 2, HR 2.27 (95% CI: 1.62-3.17); RMH score 3, HR 4.14 (95% CI: 2.62-6.53)]. NLR did not improve the AUC of the model. Poorer ECOG status (ECOG 1 vs. 0: HR = 1.59 (95% CI = 1.24-2.04), P < 0.001) and primary tumour site (GI vs. breast cancer: HR = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.16-4.35, P < 0.001) were prognostic.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a NCIS prognostic score with excellent prognostic ability for both short-term and longer-term survival (iAUC: 0.71 [95% CI 0.65-0.76]), and validated the RMH model in the largest Asian study to date.

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.

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.

Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer

Introduction

We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials.

Methods

Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed.

Results

We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/μL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/μL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases.

Conclusion

Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The 'false hope' argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment

When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises 'false hope' among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients' hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients' hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.

Diminishing clinical impact for post-approval cancer clinical trials: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Once a drug gets FDA approved, researchers often attempt to discover new applications in different indications. The clinical impact of such post-approval activities is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical impact of research efforts started after approval with those started before for cancer drugs.

Methods

We used Drugs@FDA to perform a retrospective cohort study of secondary approvals for cancer drugs that were initially FDA approved between 2005 and 2017. Clinicaltrials.gov was used to identify the beginning of each research trajectory that resulted in a secondary FDA approval. Each trajectory was classified as pre- or post-approval depending on if it was initiated before or after initial drug licensure. Clinical impact was assessed by comparing secondary approvals and NCCN off-label recommendations deriving from pre- vs. post-approval trajectories, pooled effect sizes, incidence, and level of evidence.

Results

We identified 77 broad secondary approvals, 60 of which had at least 6 years follow-up. Of these, 9 (15%) resulted from post-approval trajectories, a proportion that is significantly lower than would be expected if the timing of research didn’t impact approval (McNemar’s test p = 0.001). Compared to pre-approval trajectories, approvals resulting from post-approval trajectories were for cancers with lower mean incidence (6.11 vs 14.83, p = 0.006) and were based on pivotal trials with smaller pooled effect sizes (0.69 vs 0.57, p = 0.02) that were less likely to be randomized (38.5% vs 64.1%, p = 0.145). We identified 69 NCCN off-label recommendations. The proportion stemming from post-approval trajectories was similar to that for pre-approval (56.5% vs. 43.5%). However, recommendations from post-approval trajectories were significantly more likely to involve rare diseases (76.7% vs 51.4%, p = 0.019) and nonsignificantly less likely to be based on level 1 evidence (11.6% vs 22.9%, p = 0.309).

Conclusion

Secondary FDA approvals are less likely to result from post-approval trajectories and tend to be less impactful compared to approvals originating from research started before first FDA licensure. However, post-approval trajectories may be as likely to lead to NCCN recommendations for off-label use. Limitations of this work include our use of indirect measures of impact and limited follow-up time for trajectories. Our study protocol was pre-registered (https://osf.io/5g3jw/).

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.

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.

Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology

Phase I trials often represent the first occasion where new cancer strategies are tested in patients. Various developments in cancer biology, methodology, regulation, and medical ethics have altered the ethical landscape of such trials. We provide a narrative review of contemporary ethical challenges in design, conduct, and reporting of phase I cancer trials and outline recommendations for addressing each. We organized our review around four topics, supplementing the first three with scoping reviews: (1) benefit/risk, (2) research biopsies, (3) therapeutic misconception and misestimation, and (4) reporting. The main ethical challenges of conducting phase I trials stem from three issues. First, phase I trials often involve higher research burden and scientific uncertainty compared with other cancer trials. Second, many patients arrive at phase I trials at a transitional point in their illness trajectory where they have exhausted standard survival-extending options. Third, phase I trial results play a major role in informing downstream drug development and regulatory decisions. Together, these issues create distinct pressures for study design, ethical review, informed consent, and reporting. Developments in methodology, regulation, cancer biology, and ethical awareness have helped mitigate some of these challenges, while introducing others. We conclude our review with a series of recommendations regarding trial design, ethical review, consent, and reporting. We also outline several unresolved questions that, if addressed, would strengthen the ethical foundation of phase I cancer trials.

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.

A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials

New fetal therapies offer important prospects for improving health. However, having to consider both the fetus and the pregnant woman makes the risk-benefit analysis of fetal therapy trials challenging. Regulatory guidance is limited, and proposed ethical frameworks are overly restrictive or permissive. We propose a new ethical framework for fetal therapy research. First, we argue that considering only biomedical benefits fails to capture all relevant interests. Thus, we endorse expanding the considered benefits to include evidence-based psychosocial effects of fetal therapies. Second, we reject the commonly proposed categorical risk and/or benefit thresholds for assessing fetal therapy research (e.g., only for life-threatening conditions). Instead, we propose that the individual risks for the pregnant woman and the fetus should be justified by the benefits for them and the study's social value. Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.

Acceptable Risks in Pediatric Research: Views of the US Public

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Critics argue that it is unethical to expose children to research risks for the benefit of others, whereas many regulations permit "net-risk" pediatric research but only when the risks are minimal. In the present survey, we assessed whether the US public agrees with these views and whether the US public's views regarding the acceptability of net-risk pediatric research are influenced by its social value.

METHODS

A 15-minute survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 hypothetical scenarios involving procedures that pose increasing levels of risk. To assess whether respondents' views on the acceptability of the risks is influenced by the social value of the research, in each of the 4 scenarios we described the respective procedure being used in 3 studies with increasing levels of social value.

RESULTS

A total 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey link participated (response rate = 66.1%). Approximately 91% approved of a research blood draw in minors, and ∼69% approved of a research bone marrow biopsy. The proportion who indicated that the respective procedure was acceptable increased as the study's social value increased. This effect was significantly stronger for studies which pose greater risks compared with studies with lower risks (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of the US public supports net-risk pediatric research that poses minimal risk, and a majority supports net-risk pediatric research that poses somewhat greater risks, provided it has high social value. These findings offer important information for assessing when it is acceptable to conduct net-risk pediatric research.

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.

Expanded principles of ethics and its implementation during COVID-19 vaccine trials: A scoping evidence based research synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic will subside only through the emergence and distribution of an efficacious vaccine. The two main aspects that should be maintained in equilibrium: the dire necessity for speedy vaccine research and the need for safeguarding the research subjects, which is of utmost concern in research ethics. This opens up a discussion of what norms to follow during the clinical trials while developing the vaccine. As of now, various companies like Moderna, Pfizer, University of Oxford, Astra-Zeneca and so on have moved beyond the safety, efficacy and immunogenic studies. This narrative review explores and discusses the key principles of ethics: a principle of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice along with its ten general expanded principles. Furthermore, it delves into the different types of vaccines, their mechanisms, side effects, limitations, and advantages.

Hospitalizations in solid tumor phase I clinical trial patients: Incidence, pattern and clinical outcomes at an Australian phase I clinical trial unit

BACKGROUND

Participation in early-phase clinical trials has become a prominent part of medical oncology patient management. We examined the incidence and pattern of hospitalizations in early-phase clinical trial patients and the associated clinical outcomes.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective review of 194 patients with solid tumors treated on phase I clinical trials between July 2014 and October 2018 at a phase I trial unit. Unplanned hospitalizations occurring during the study period were characterized and correlated with treatment response and duration of trial participation.

RESULTS

Among 194 patients, 104 hospitalizations were recorded involving 62 patients (31%). Nineteen percent of patients were hospitalized for cancer-related complications and 8% for treatment toxicity. No significant correlation was seen between the hospitalization and age, sex, tumor type, or trial drug. Best response to trial therapy was complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease in 5%, 11%, 37%, and 47% of patients, respectively. Median duration on trial was 86 days (range 0-1,412). Twenty-two patients (11%) remained on trial for more than 12 months. Overall, hospitalization did not impact treatment response or trial duration. However, cancer-related hospitalization was associated with significantly lower response (p < 0.001) and early patient attrition (p < 0.001). Resolution of the hospitalization event was associated with improved response (p = 0.002) and longer duration on trial (p < 0.001). The treatment related mortality was 0.5% (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Approximately one third of patients required hospitalization, most commonly for cancer-related complications which correlated with poorer clinical outcomes. Hospitalizations related to treatment toxicity were infrequent. A significant proportion of patients derived significant therapeutic benefit. Phase I clinical trials provide a valuable treatment option for patients with cancer.

Proportion of Patients in Phase I Oncology Trials Receiving Treatments That Are Ultimately Approved

BACKGROUND

Phase I oncology trials are often regarded as a therapeutic option for patients. However, such claims have relied on surrogate measures of benefit, such as objective response.

METHODS

Using a systematic search of publications, we assessed the therapeutic value of phase I cancer trial participation by determining the probability that patients will receive active doses of treatments that eventually receive FDA approval or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendation for their indication. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology reports, NCCN guidelines, and Drugs@FDA were searched between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 phase I oncology trials initiated between 2005 and 2010 and enrolling 32 582 patients were randomly sampled from 3229 eligible trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 386 (1.2%) patients received a treatment that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for their malignancy at a dose delivered in the trial; including NCCN guideline recommendations, the number and proportion are 1168 (3.6%). Meta-regression showed a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients receiving a drug that was ultimately FDA approved in biomarker trials (rate ratio = 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 13.23; P = .006) and single-indication trials (rate ratio = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.21 to 9.15; P  = .02); proportions were statistically significantly lower for combination vs monotherapy trials (rate ratio = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.68; P  = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 83 patients in phase I cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received. Given published estimates of serious adverse event rates of 10%-19%, this represents low therapeutic value for phase I trial participation.

Therapeutic outcome of early-phase clinical trials in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

Great progress in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has been made due to the development of novel drugs. Patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) can be enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, but their performance across the last decade is unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis on the overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for phase I and phase II trials investigating an experimental compound as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone, published from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2020. Eighty-eight articles were included, describing 61 phase I trials involving 1835 patients and 37 phase II trials involving 2644 patients. There was a high degree of heterogeneity. Using a random-effects model, the 95% CIs of the estimated ORR were 8-17% for phase I trials and 18-28% for phase II trials. There were significant subgroup differences in ORR between the years of publication in phase I trials and between drug classes in both phase I and phase II trials. The ORR in early-phase clinical trials in RRMM is substantial, especially in phase II trials, but due to high heterogeneity a general assessment of clinical benefit before participation is difficult to offer to patients.

Gene expression profiles of liver cancer cell lines reveal two hepatocyte-like and fibroblast-like clusters

Cancer cell lines are widely used in basic research to study cancer development, growth, invasion, or metastasis. They are also used for the development and screening of anticancer drugs. However, there are no clear criteria for choosing the most suitable cell lines among the wide variety of cancer cell lines commercially available for research, and the choice is often based on previously published reports. Here, we investigated the characteristics of liver cancer cell lines by analyzing the gene expression data available in the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia. Unsupervised clustering analysis of 28 liver cancer cell lines yielded two main clusters. One cluster showed a gene expression pattern similar to that of hepatocytes, and the other showed a pattern similar to that of fibroblasts. Analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma gene expression profiles available in The Cancer Genome Atlas showed that the gene expression patterns in most hepatoma tissues were similar to those in the hepatocyte-like cluster. With respect to liver cancer research, our findings may be useful for selecting an appropriate cell line for a specific study objective. Furthermore, our approach of utilizing a public database for comparing the properties of cell lines could be an attractive cell line selection strategy that can be applied to other fields of research.

Clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients treated in phase I clinical trials at University of Colorado Cancer Center

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) refractory to standard of care therapies have a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to assess patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients with MBC treated on phase I clinical trials. We performed a retrospective review of all patients with MBC who were enrolled in phase I clinical trials at the University of Colorado Cancer Center from January 2012 to June 2018. A total of 208 patients were identified. Patients had a mean age of 57 years and received on average 2.1 (range 0-10) prior lines of chemotherapy. The majority of patients had hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (58.6%) and 30.3% had triple-negative breast cancer. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.9) and median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.2). Independent factors associated with longer PFS in multivariable analysis were treatment in a breast cancer-selective trial or cohort (p = 0.016), age >50 years (p = 0.002), and ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (p = 0.025). Phase I clinical trials remain a valuable option for select patients with MBC and enrollment should be encouraged when available.

Intestinal organoids: a model to study the role of microbiota in the colonic tumor microenvironment

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer worldwide. Recent studies have suggested that a dysbiotic shift in the intestinal microbial composition of CRC patients influences tumorigenesis. Gut microbes are known to be integral for intestinal homeostasis; however, the mechanisms by which they impact CRC are unclear. Further knowledge about these complex interactions may guide future CRC management. Thus, it is crucial to establish high-quality experimental models to understand the relationship between host, tumor, microbiota and their metabolic interactions. In this review, we highlight the significance of intestinal microbiota and their metabolites in CRC, challenges with current experimental models, advantages and limitations of organoid culture and future directions of this novel model system in CRC-associated microbiome research.

Patient Perceptions in a Nonblinded Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy Technologies: A Novel Survey Study Exploring Therapeutic Misconception

PURPOSE

Therapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology.

METHODS

Patients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences.

RESULTS

Forty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover.

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception.

Survival and clinical outcomes of patients with ovarian cancer who were treated on phase 1 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with ovarian cancer who are enrolled on phase 1 trials typically have platinum-resistant and heavily pretreated disease, with a poor prognosis. In the current study, the authors assessed prognostic factors and survival in women with recurrent ovarian cancer who were treated on phase 1 clinical trials.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated from 2008 through 2018 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Patient characteristics and treatment and toxicity-related survival data were assessed. Descriptive statistics and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors associated with survival time.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were treated on phase 1 clinical trials. Patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 33-88 years) with a median of 5.5 previous chemotherapy lines (range, 1-13 lines). Of the 132 patients, 53 (40%) were treated on multiple phase 1 trials with a median of 1 (range, 0-5) prior phase 1 trial. The overall response rate was 14.7%. The median overall survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.1-13.4 months). Two patients died on trial due to progression of disease whereas no patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Independent risk factors found to be predictive of shorter survival were an elevated cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) level (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.6-5.2) and albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.65-3.79). A body mass index >25 kg/m² was predictive of longer survival (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

In the current single-institution series, patients with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer who were treated on phase 1 clinical trials experienced a median overall survival of 11.3 months. When available, phase 1 clinical trials represent a reasonable treatment option for patients with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer with a preserved performance status.

Phase I trials and therapeutic intent in the age of precision oncology: What is a patient's chance of response?

The advancement of therapeutic strategies in oncology such as precision oncology has generated significant interest in better estimating the response of modern phase I cancer clinical trials. These estimates have varied widely. In this commentary, we provide an umbrella review of phase I response rates and discuss methodological reasons for variation in prior estimates which include limited use of unpublished data, the inclusion of expansion cohorts that artificially raise response rates of cumulative response rates, varying enrolment of haematologic malignancies, and increased next in class drugs.

Associations between safety, tolerability, and toxicity and the reporting of health-related quality of life in phase III randomized trials in common solid tumors

Background

Anti‐cancer drugs are approved typically on the basis of efficacy and safety as evaluated in phase III randomized trials (RCTs). Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is a direct measure of patient benefit, but is under‐reported. Here we explore associations with reporting of HRQoL data in phase III RCTs in common solid tumors.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III RCTs evaluating new drugs in adults with advanced cancers that completed accrual between January 2005 and October 2016. Data on HRQoL, safety, and tolerability comprising treatment‐related death, treatment discontinuation and commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Associations between these measures and reporting of HRQoL data were explored using logistic regression.

Results

Of 377 phase III RCTs identified initially, 143 studies were analysed and comprised 55% positive trials and 90% industry sponsored trials. HRQoL was listed as an endpoint in 59% trials; and of these, only 65% reported HRQoL data. There were higher odds of reporting HRQoL data for positive trials (OR 2.05, P = .04) and trials published in journals with higher impact factor (OR 1.35, P = .01). Reporting of HRQoL was not associated with treatment‐related death (OR 1.25, P = .40) or treatment discontinuation (OR 1.12, P = .61), but was positively associated with dyspnea and dermatological adverse events.

Conclusions

HRQoL is reported in only two‐thirds of RCTs that describe collecting such data. Reporting of HRQoL is associated with positive trial outcome and higher journal impact factor, but not associated with overall safety and tolerability of anti‐cancer drugs.

Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Women with gynecologic cancer may be at increased risk for adverse events (AEs) due to peritoneal disease burden and prior treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and pelvic radiotherapy). This study compared the toxicity profiles of patients with and without gynecologic cancer enrolled in phase 1 trials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute phase 1 database for all trials enrolling 1 or more patients with gynecologic cancer over 2 decades (1995-2015). Clinical parameters collected included demographics, cancer history, trial information, AEs, and responses. AEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were documented for each patient during treatment, and they were counted once and analyzed on the basis of the highest grade and drug attribution. Multiple regression models were used to compare AEs at the baseline and during treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4269 patients enrolled in 150 trials were divided into 3 groups: 1) women with gynecologic cancer (n = 685), 2) women with nongynecologic cancer (n = 1698), and 3) men with cancer (n = 1886). The median age was 58 years. The mean number of total AEs reported during treatment was highest for women with gynecologic cancer (17.1 vs 14.7 vs 13.5; P < .001), even though they were similar at the baseline (7.0 vs 7.4 vs 7.0; P = .09). The mean number of drug-related AEs was also highest for women with gynecologic cancer (8.3 vs 6.9 vs 6.2; P < .001). Grade 3 to 5 AEs were similar (2.3 vs 2.3 vs 2.1); however, grade 2 AEs were more frequent in women with gynecologic cancer (4.6 vs 3.9 vs 3.5). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were similar (9% vs 9% vs 10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with gynecologic cancer experienced more frequent low-grade AEs during treatment, and this warrants attention to support their symptom burden. Study dose management should be considered for recurrent grade 2 AEs, particularly during continuous therapy.

First-In-Human Phase 1 Clinical Trials - A Single-Center Experience In The Era Of Modern Oncotherapeutics

In the era of precision medicine the treatment options for cancer patients and subsequent outcomes are expected to improve. We present a review of patients enrolled in first-in-human Phase1 trials at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Between 1/2015-6/2017, 162 cancer patients (whole cohort, WC) were enrolled on phase1 studies receiving either targeted therapy (TT) or immuno-therapy (IOT). We assessed 90 day mortality (90DM) and time to treatment failure (TTF) to determine the predictors. Of the WC (122 (TT), 40 (IOT)), 90 (56%) received ≥ 2 prior therapies and 38 (24%) ⩾ 5 prior therapies. Overall, Grade 3 or 4 events were observed in 33% (WC) vs 31% (TT) vs 38% (IOT). The 90DM was 9.3% (WC) vs 7.4% (TT) vs 15% (IOT). The median TTF was 4.2 months vs 4.5 m vs 3.6 m. The number of lines of prior therapy and performance status were identified as outcome predictors. Our data reflects the new trend in precision oncology where majority received non-cytotoxic therapeutic interventions. The observation that number of lines of prior therapy and performance status predictive of PFS and 90DM emphasizes the need to consider phase1 trials earlier, preferably upon progression following definitive therapy.

Reprioritizing Risk and Benefit: The Future of Study Design in Early-Phase Cancer Research

The scientific purpose of phase I trials is to determine the maximum tolerated dose and/or optimal biological dose of experimental agents. Yet most participants in phase I oncology trials enroll hoping for direct medical benefit. The most common phase I trial designs use low starting doses and escalate cautiously in a "risk-escalation" model focused on minimizing risk for each participant. This approach ensures that a proportion of subjects will likely not receive any benefit, even if the intervention proves to be successful at appropriate doses. In this article, we propose that trial designs should employ dosing strategies that increase chances of providing benefit if the investigational agent should prove to be successful while limiting risk to reasonable levels. We then describe how adaptive trial designs can facilitate refined dose optimization based on both therapeutic benefit and toxicity, which can simultaneously decrease the risk of harm while increasing the chances of benefit.

Patient burden and clinical advances associated with postapproval monotherapy cancer drug trials: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5 years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8 years.

RESULTS

Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8 years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.

Quality of phase I clinical drug trials: Influence of organizational management factors

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Focusing on the tolerance and pharmacokinetics of new drugs, phase I clinical drug trials are characterized by high risk, poor compliance and management difficulties. High-quality clinical drug trials ensure subjects' safety while extending new drug research and development. Many studies have examined micro-level concerns of trial design and implementation rather than macro-level factors. Accordingly, we evaluated the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (trial quality) and analysed the influence of organizational management factors from a macro-level perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed staff at clinical trial institutions engaged in phase I clinical drug trials in China using convenience sampling. We employed a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, comprising five items on phase I clinical drug trial quality and items on organizational management factors. Data from 604 questionnaires were analysed. We utilized a logistic regression model to estimate the influence of organizational management factors on trial quality, using individual demographic factors as controlling variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The trial quality score was 3.81, which indicates that substantial improvement is required. Government regulation, industry management and medical institution management had a positive effect on trial quality: β = 0.842, 0.691 and 0.579, respectively; P < .01. Contract research organization management had a negative effect on trial quality: β = -0.476; P = .013. Research team management had no effect on trial quality: β = 0.325; P = .141.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study is the first to model the influence of organizational management factors on the quality of phase I drug trials involving different organizations from a macro-perspective. Efforts are needed to help research teams take responsibility for trial quality and to correct the negative impact of contract research organizations on trial quality.

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients' needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict.

METHODS

In the first part, patients' values and preferences and medical oncologists' views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12-18 months before implementation) post-test (12-18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients' values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured.

DISCUSSION

This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).

Improved survival among patients enrolled in oncology phase 1 trials in recent decades

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the survival of patients enrolled in phase 1 trials in recent decades.

METHODS

The medical records of consecutive patients with advanced cancer who participated in single-agent oncology phase 1 trials from 1995 to 2015 at a single institution were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (34.1%) patients participated in 1995-2004 and 516 (65.9%) participated in 2005-2015. The median follow-up period was 25.4 months (range 1.3-166.9). The response rate did not differ significantly between the two periods (3.9% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.17). The median survival times were 9.5 (95% confidence interval 8.4-11.2) months in 1995-2004 and 11.8 (95% confidence interval 10.9-13.3) months in 2005-2015 (p = 0.0009). The enrolment period was an independent prognostic factor of overall survival according to multivariate analysis (hazard ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.99, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-centre, retrospective analysis, the trends in patients characteristic were consistent with those of Western countries, and the overall survival of cancer patients enrolled in oncology phase 1 trials tended to improve in recent decades, suggesting that patient selection, the population that benefits from investigational agents and treatment after phase 1 trials have improved.

Sequential or combined designs for Phase I/II clinical trials? A simulation study

Background:

Phase I and Phase II clinical trials aim at identifying a dose that is safe and active. Both phases are increasingly combined. For Phase I/II trials, two main types of designs are debated: a dose-escalation stage to select the maximum tolerated dose, followed by an expansion cohort to investigate its activity (dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort), or a joint modelling to identify the best trade-off between toxicity and activity (efficacy–toxicity). We explore this question in the context of a paediatric Phase I/II platform trial.

Methods:

In series of simulations, we assessed the operating characteristics of dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort (DE-EC) designs without and with reassessment of the maximum tolerated dose during the expansion cohort (DE-ECext) and of the efficacy–toxicity (EffTox) design. We investigated the probability to identify an active and tolerable agent, that is, the percentage of correct decision, for various dose-toxicity activity scenarios.

Results:

For a large therapeutic index, the percentage of correct decision reached 96.0% for efficacy–toxicity versus 76.1% for dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort versus 79.6% for DE-ECext. Conversely, when all doses were deemed not active, the percentage of correct decision was 47% versus 55.9% versus 69.2%, respectively, for efficacy–toxicity, dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort and DE-ECext. Finally, in the case of a narrow therapeutic index, the percentage of correct decision was 48.0% versus 64.3% versus 67.2%, respectively, efficacy–toxicity, dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort and DE-ECext.

Conclusion:

As narrow indexes are common in oncology, according to the present results, the sequential dose-escalation followed by an expansion cohort is recommended. The importance to re-estimate the maximum tolerated dose during the expansion cohort is confirmed. However, despite their theoretical advantages, Phase I/II designs are challenged by the variations in populations between the Phase I and the Phase II parts and by the lagtime in the evaluation of toxicity and activity.

Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials' and have been believed to have low clinical utility other than that of establishing the adverse event profile of novel therapeutic agents. The traditional distinction of clinical trials into three phases has been challenged in the past few years by the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies into the routine management of patients with cancer. This transformation has especially affected early phase trials, leading to the current situation in which response rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials. In this Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contributes to a new paradigm whereby preliminary measurements of the clinical benefit from a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to have a therapeutic intent.