ACCELERATE – Five years accelerating cancer drug development for children and adolescents

Paediatric strategy forum for medicinal product development of PI3-K, mTOR, AKT and GSK3β inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-K) signalling pathway is a crucial path in cancer for cell survival and thus represents an intriguing target for new paediatric anti-cancer drugs. However, the unique clinical toxicities of targeting this pathway (resulting in hyperglycaemia) difficulties combining with chemotherapy, rarity of mutations in childhood tumours and concomitant mutations have resulted in major barriers to clinical translation of these inhibitors in treating both adults and children. Mutations in PIK3CA predict response to PI3-K inhibitors in adult cancers. The same mutations occur in children as in adults, but they are significantly less frequent in paediatrics. In children, high-grade gliomas, especially diffuse midline gliomas (DMG), have the highest incidence of PIK3CA mutations. New mutation-specific PI3-K inhibitors reduce toxicity from on-target PI3-Kα wild-type activity. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus is approved for subependymal giant cell astrocytomas. In paediatric cancers, mTOR inhibitors have been predominantly evaluated by academia, without an overall strategy, in empiric, mutation-agnostic clinical trials with very low response rates to monotherapy. Therefore, future trials of single agent or combination strategies of mTOR inhibitors in childhood cancer should be supported by very strong biological rationale and preclinical data. Further preclinical evaluation of glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta inhibitors is required. Similarly, even where there is an AKT mutation (∼0.1 %), the role of AKT inhibitors in paediatric cancers remains unclear. Patient advocates strongly urged analysing and conserving data from every child participating in a clinical trial. A priority is to evaluate mutation-specific, central nervous system-penetrant PI3-K inhibitors in children with DMG in a rational biological combination. The choice of combination, should be based on the genomic landscape e.g. PTEN loss and resistance mechanisms supported by preclinical data. However, in view of the very rare populations involved, innovative regulatory approaches are needed to generate data for an indication.

Naked antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates: targeted therapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia

The treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has reached overall survival rates exceeding 90%. The present and future challenges are to cure the remainder of patients still dying from disease, and to reduce morbidity and mortality in those who can be cured with standard-of-care chemotherapy by replacing toxic chemotherapy elements while retaining cure rates. With the novel therapeutic options introduced in the last years, including immunotherapies and targeted antibodies, the treatment of ALL is undergoing major changes. For B-cell precursor ALL, blinatumomab, an anti-CD19 bispecific antibody, has established its role in the consolidation treatment for both high- and standard-risk first relapse of ALL, in the presence of bone marrow involvement, and may also have an impact on the outcome of high-risk subsets such as infant ALL and Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL. Inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 drug conjugated antibody, has demonstrated high efficacy in inducing complete remission in relapsed ALL, even in the presence of high tumor burden, but randomized phase III trials are still ongoing. For T-ALL the role of CD38-directed treatment, such as daratumumab, is gaining interest, but randomized data are needed to assess its specific benefit. These antibodies are currently being tested in patients with newly diagnosed ALL and may lead to major changes in the present paradigm of treatment of pediatric ALL. Unlike the past, lessons may be learned from innovations in adult ALL, in which more drastic changes are piloted that may need to be translated to pediatrics.

Evolution of the Innovative Therapies for Children With Cancer Consortium Trial Portfolio for Drug Development for Children With Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium is to improve access to novel therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. The evolution of the ITCC clinical trial portfolio since 2003 was reviewed.

METHODS

All ITCC-labeled phase I/II trials opened between January 1, 2003 and February 3, 2018 were analyzed in two periods (2003-2010 and 2011-2018), and data were extracted from the ITCC database, regulatory agencies' registries, and publications.

RESULTS

Sixty-one trials (62% industry-sponsored) enrolled 3,198 patients. The number of trials in the second period increased by almost 300% (16 v 45). All biomarker-driven trials (n = 14) were conducted in the second period. The use of rolling six and model-based designs increased (1 of 9, 11% v 21 of 31, 68%), and that of 3 + 3 designs decreased (5 of 9, 55% v 5 of 31, 16%; P = .014). The proportion of studies evaluating chemotherapeutics only decreased (5 of 16, 31% v 4 of 45, 9%), the proportion of single-agent targeted therapies did not change (9 of 16, 56.2% v 24 of 45, 53.3%), the proportion of combination targeted therapies trials increased (2 of 16, 12%, v 17 of 45, 38%), the proportion of randomized phase II trials increased (1 of 7, 14% v 8 of 14, 57%). More trials were part of a pediatric investigation plan in the second period (4 of 16, 25% v 21 of 45, 46%). The median time for Ethics Committees' approvals was 1.7 times longer for academic compared with industry-sponsored trials.

CONCLUSION

This study reports a shift in the paradigm of early drug development for childhood cancers, with more biologically relevant targets evaluated in biomarker-driven trials or in combination with other therapies and with more model-based or randomized designs and a greater focus on fulfilling regulatory requirements. Improvement of trial setup and recruitment could increase the number of patients benefiting from novel agents.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Impact of ACCELERATE Paediatric Strategy Forums: a review of the value of multi-stakeholder meetings in oncology drug development

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm.

Access to innovative therapies in pediatric oncology: Report of the nationwide experience in Canada

BACKGROUND

The need for new therapies to improve survival and outcomes in pediatric oncology along with the lack of approval and accessible clinical trials has led to "out-of-trial" use of innovative therapies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of requests for innovative anticancer therapy in Canadian pediatric oncology tertiary centers for patients less than 30 years old between 2013 and 2020.

METHODS

Innovative therapies were defined as cancer-directed drugs used (a) off-label, (b) unlicensed drugs being used outside the context of a clinical trial, or (c) approved drugs with limited evidence in pediatrics. We excluded cytotoxic chemotherapy, cellular products, and cytokines.

RESULTS

We retrieved data on 352 innovative therapy drug requests. Underlying diagnosis was primary CNS tumor 31%; extracranial solid tumor 37%, leukemia/lymphoma 22%, LCH 2%, and plexiform neurofibroma 6%. RAS/MAP kinase pathway inhibitors were the most frequently requested innovative therapies in 28% of all requests followed by multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (17%), inhibitors of the PIK3CA-mTOR-AKT pathway (8%), immune checkpoints inhibitors (8%), and antibody drug conjugates (8%). In 112 out of 352 requests, innovative therapies were used in combination with another anticancer agent. 48% of requests were motivated by the presence of an actionable molecular target. Compassionate access accounted for 52% of all requests while public insurance was used in 27%. Mechanisms of funding varied between provinces.

CONCLUSION

This real-world data collection illustrates an increasing use of "out-of-trial" innovative therapies in pediatric oncology. This new field of practice warrants further studies to understand the impact on patient trajectory and equity in access to innovative therapies.

The organization of care in pediatric radiotherapy across SIOP Europe affiliated centers: A multicenter survey in the framework of the 'Joint Action on Rare Cancers' project

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To reduce inequalities among SIOPE-affiliated countries, standard and optional levels to deliver 'Good Clinical Practice' compliant treatment in pediatric radiation oncology have been published. The aim of this project was to map the availability of pediatric radiotherapy resources across SIOPE-affiliated radiotherapy departments.

MATERIALS/METHODS

An online survey with 34 questions was distributed to 246 radiotherapy departments across 35 SIOPE-affiliated countries. In addition to demographic data, 15 general items related to the organization of the radiotherapy process, and 10 radiotherapy-specific items were defined. For each of the 25 items, sum scores were calculated per center and country. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze associations.

RESULTS

Between March-June 2019, 121 departments (49 %) out of 31 countries (89 %) completed the survey. At center level, involvement of core disciplines in tumor boards (28 %), and integration of dedicated pediatric radiation therapy technologists (24 %) are limited, while rare & complex brachytherapy procedures are performed in many centers (23 %). For general and radiotherapy-specific items respectively, a relevant variation of sum scores was observed across countries (Δgeneral: ≤10 points; ΔRT_specific: ≤5 points) and among centers within a country (Δgeneral: ≤9 points; ΔRT_specific: ≤6 points). Sum scores for general and radiotherapy-specific items were higher in countries with a high-income (p < 0.01) and higher health development index (p < 0.01). A larger annual number of irradiated pediatric patients was associated with higher sum scores for general items (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This survey demonstrates the disparities in organization of pediatric radiotherapy departments between SIOPE-affiliated countries and centers within the same country. Investment is needed to reduce inequalities in pediatric radiotherapy care.

Pediatric oncology drug development and dosage optimization

Oncology drug discovery and development has always been an area facing many challenges. Phase 1 oncology studies are typically small, open-label, sequential studies enrolling a small sample of adult patients (i.e., 3-6 patients/cohort) in dose escalation. Pediatric evaluations typically lag behind the adult development program. The pediatric starting dose is traditionally referenced on the recommended phase 2 dose in adults with the incorporation of body size scaling. The size of the study is also small and dependent upon the prevalence of the disease in the pediatric population. Similar to adult development, the dose is escalated or de-escalated until reaching the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) that also provides desired biological activities or efficacy. The escalation steps and identification of MTD are often rule-based and do not incorporate all the available information, such as pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), tolerability and efficacy data. Therefore, it is doubtful if the MTD approach is optimal to determine the dosage. Hence, it is important to evaluate whether there is an optimal dosage below the MTD, especially considering the emerging complexity of combination therapies and the long-term tolerability and safety of the treatments. Identification of an optimal dosage is also vital not only for adult patients but for pediatric populations as well. Dosage-finding is much more challenging for pediatric populations due to the limited patient population and differences among the pediatric age range in terms of maturation and ontogeny that could impact PK. Many sponsors defer the pediatric strategy as they are often perplexed by the challenges presented by pediatric oncology drug development (model of action relevancy to pediatric population, budget, timeline and regulatory requirements). This leads to a limited number of approved drugs for pediatric oncology patients. This review article provides the current regulatory landscape, incentives and how they impact pediatric drug discovery and development. We also consider different pediatric cancers and potential clinical trial challenges/opportunities when designing pediatric clinical trials. An outline of how quantitative methods such as pharmacometrics/modelling & simulation can support the dosage-finding and justification is also included. Finally, we provide some reflections that we consider helpful to accelerate pediatric drug discovery and development.

Rescuing Drugs That are Discontinued in Adult Oncology Development for the Benefit of Children and Adolescents With Cancer - An ACCELERATE Multistakeholder Consensus

Better therapies for childhood cancer remain an unmet need to improve the dismal prognosis of certain malignancies and to reduce the burden of toxicity. Rescuing discontinued or shelved drugs for children, adolescents, and young adults is a strategy to identify new uses for approved or investigational medicines outside the scope of their original medical indication. Our proposed multistakeholder consensus focuses on the development of innovative, patent-protected targeted agents, sourced from previously shelved or discontinued programs that have the potential to provide significant benefit to underserved patient populations, with unmet medical needs. There are several challenges to continuing/rescuing drugs for pediatric oncology development, which include the lack of information for decision making, corporate strategy considerations underlying the decision to invest in pediatric development, and the contracting and technology transfer complexities required to enable divestment and subsequent development. The multistakeholder approach for drug development has the advantage of conveying a consensus among academia, patient advocates, and importantly industry itself. We propose three areas of action to facilitate rescuing potentially beneficial drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: (i) initiatives to provide information to companies considering developing these drugs and a standards framework; (ii) incentives both in Europe and in the United States to encourage companies to develop pediatric-only drugs, with the reform of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation posing an important opportunity; and (iii) communication of the issues to all stakeholders. Ultimately, this will benefit children and adolescents with cancer.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Queries Raised During Oncology Business Pipeline Meetings at the European Medicines Agency: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers guidance and support to pharmaceutical companies through bilateral discussions called business pipeline meetings (BPMs). An analysis of BPMs in oncology over a 5-year period was conducted to identify common topics and recurring queries. The documents of all BPMs available at the EMA regarding the field of oncology from January 1, 2018, to Decemer 31, 2022, were reviewed. For every query, a main category was assigned, and in case of multiple relevant topics, a secondary category was appointed too. For all queries, the follow-up offered by the EMA was documented, and whether the requested information was available. Subsequently, all queries were scanned for overlapping topics between meetings. From 2018 to 2022, 31 BPMs were held between the EMA and pharmaceutical companies to discuss oncology-related questions, for a total of 397 queries raised. They were classified into 24 topics, of which 15 were common topics (n ≥ 10 queries) with regulatory pathways/guidelines and trial design having the most queries. Post-BPM actions were taken or recommended by the EMA for 41.3% of queries, such as referrals to scientific advice or published guidelines. Forty-three queries were raised at more than one BPM. Targeted therapy, companion diagnostics, institutional collaboration, trial design, and regulatory pathways/guidelines were the most discussed topics in oncology BPMs, with molecular developments being the common denominator. Creating Q&A documents, publishing new guidelines, providing a framework for discussions, and questionnaire-based follow-up research can improve the quality of BPMs, and the accessibility of the information requested during the BPMs.

A systematic review of recent phase-II trials in refractory or recurrent osteosarcoma: Can we inform future trial design?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To analyze changes in recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma phase II trials over time to inform future trials in this population with poor prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of trials registered on trial registries between 01/01/2017-14/02/2022. Comparison of 98 trials identified between 2003 and 2016. Publication search/analysis for both periods, last update on 01/12/2022.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, 71 phase-II trials met our selection criteria (19 osteosarcoma-specific trials, 14 solid tumor trials with and 38 trials without an osteosarcoma-specific stratum). The trial number increased over time: 13.9 versus 7 trials/year (p = 0.06). Monotherapy remained the predominant treatment (62% vs. 62%, p = 1). Targeted therapies were increasingly evaluated (66% vs. 41%, P = 0.001). Heterogeneity persisted in the trial characteristics. The inclusion criteria were measurable disease (75%), evaluable disease (14%), and surgical remission (11%). 82% of the trials included pediatric or adolescent patients. Biomarker-driven trials accounted for 25% of the total trials. The survival endpoint use (rather than response) slightly increased (40% versus 31%), but the study H1/H0 hypotheses remained heterogeneous. Single-arm designs predominated over multiarm trials (n = 7). Available efficacy data on 1361 osteosarcoma patients in 58 trials remained disappointing, even though 21% of these trials were considered positive, predominantly those evaluating multi-targeted kinase inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Despite observed changes in trial design and an increased number of trials investigating new therapies, high heterogeneity remained with respect to patient selection, study design, primary endpoints, and statistical hypotheses in recently registered phase II trials for osteosarcoma. Continued optimization of trial design informed by a deeper biological understanding should strengthen the development of new therapies.

Comparison of the Latin America Regulation Landscape and International Reference Health Authorities to Hasten Drug Registration and Clinical Research Applications

INTRODUCTION

Promptly providing new drugs to fulfill unmet medical needs requires changes in drug development and registration processes. Health Authorities (HAs) considered as reference due to their experience and acknowledgement (Food and Drug Administration [FDA] among others) already consider innovative clinical trial (CT) designs and flexible approval procedures, but Latin America (LATAM) regulations are still far. A comparison was performed to identify gaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT requirements for drug Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) and CT approval regulations were compared between LATAM and reference HAs (FDA/European Medicines Agency [EMA]/Health-Canada/Swissmedic/Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA]/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency [PMDA]), as of August 2022. Procedure included reference HAs regulations review, item selection, identification in LATAM regulations, and International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines (ICH-E6[R2]/ICH-E8[R1]) implementation revision.

RESULTS

For MAA, specific application requirements or ICH guideline M4(R4) on common technical document (CTD) adoption are generally stated, and phase-I/III performance is mandatory (explicitly/implicitly). Faster patient access procedures are infrequent: Priority-drug programs, conditional authorizations, or expedited procedures are scarce or non-existent. Regulatory reliance procedures are adopted through different pathways. Regarding CT approval, innovative/complex CT designs are not prohibited but usually omitted. Some countries implemented adapted CT conducting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early scientific advice meetings (HA-sponsor) are occasionally considered. Most countries are not formally ICH-joined.

CONCLUSIONS

LATAM regulations must adapt to new regulatory standards (FDA/EMA/ICH) through implementation of frequent updates, reliance/expedited procedures, early HA-sponsor interactions, innovative/complex CTs, mandatory phase-III reaching elimination, and decentralized elements for CT conducting.

Pediatric Drug Development: Reviewing Challenges and Opportunities by Tracking Innovative Therapies

The paradigm of pediatric drug development has been evolving in a "carrot-and-stick"-based tactic to address population-specific issues. However, the off-label prescription of adult medicines to pediatric patients remains a feature of clinical practice, which may compromise the age-appropriate evaluation of treatments. Therefore, the United States and the European Pediatric Formulation Initiative have recommended applying nanotechnology-based delivery systems to tackle some of these challenges, particularly applying inorganic, polymeric, and lipid-based nanoparticles. Connected with these, advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) have also been highlighted, with optimistic perspectives for the pediatric population. Despite the results achieved using these innovative therapies, a workforce that congregates pediatric patients and/or caregivers, healthcare stakeholders, drug developers, and physicians continues to be of utmost relevance to promote standardized guidelines for pediatric drug development, enabling a fast lab-to-clinical translation. Therefore, taking into consideration the significance of this topic, this work aims to compile the current landscape of pediatric drug development by (1) outlining the historic regulatory panorama, (2) summarizing the challenges in the development of pediatric drug formulation, and (3) delineating the advantages/disadvantages of using innovative approaches, such as nanomedicines and ATMPs in pediatrics. Moreover, some attention will be given to the role of pharmaceutical technologists and developers in conceiving pediatric medicines.

Embracing paediatric palliative care in paediatric oncology from diagnosis onwards

Paediatric palliative care aims to support children and young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, and their families, from the time of diagnosis. Early integration within oncology has been recognised as having benefits for all involved, whatever the outcome may be. Through improved communication and advance care planning, it enables user-centred care, where concerns about quality of life, preferences and values are given the same relevance as cutting-edge therapy. Challenges to the integration of palliative care within paediatric oncology include raising awareness and providing education, whilst searching for the best care model and adapting to an ever-changing therapeutic scenario.

Clinical research with targeted drugs in paediatric oncology

The development of targeted drugs in paediatric oncology has been notoriously slow, in part due to the peculiarities of this rare and highly heterogeneous population. To provide therapeutic breakthroughs for the highest risk subgroups of childhood cancer, innovative research solutions have been implemented in the last several years by different international collaborative groups and regulators. Here, we discuss and summarise some of these approaches, as well as challenges and unmet needs that are still being addressed. A wide range of topics were covered in this review including molecular diagnosis optimisation, innovative research methodologies, big data approaches, trial enrolment strategies, and improvements in regulation and preclinical research platforms.

Pharmacokinetics during therapeutic hypothermia in neonates: from pathophysiology to translational knowledge and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling

INTRODUCTION

Perinatal asphyxia (PA) still causes significant morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) is the only effective therapy for neonates with moderate to severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy after PA. These neonates need additional pharmacotherapy, and both PA and TH may impact physiology and, consequently, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the available knowledge in PubMed (until November 2022) on the pathophysiology of neonates with PA/TH. In vivo pig models for this setting enable distinguishing the effect of PA versus TH on PK and translating this effect to human neonates. Available asphyxia pig models and methodological considerations are described. A summary of human neonatal PK of supportive pharmacotherapy to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes is provided.

EXPERT OPINION

To support drug development for this population, knowledge from clinical observations (PK data, real-world data on physiology), preclinical (in vitro and in vivo (minipig)) data, and molecular and cellular biology insights can be integrated into a predictive physiologically-based PK (PBPK) framework, as illustrated by the I-PREDICT project (Innovative physiology-based pharmacokinetic model to predict drug exposure in neonates undergoing cooling therapy). Current knowledge, challenges, and expert opinion on the future directions of this research topic are provided.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of DNA damage response pathway inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy.

Combination Early-Phase Trials of Anticancer Agents in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE

There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders.

METHODS

After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved.

RESULTS

Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements.

CONCLUSION

An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

Changing incentives to ACCELERATE drug development for paediatric cancer

BACKGROUND

More effective incentives are needed to motivate paediatric oncology drug development, uncoupling it from dependency on adult drug development. Although the current European and North-American legislations aim to promote drug development for paediatrics and rare diseases, children and adolescents with cancer have not benefited as expected from these initiatives and cancer remains the first cause of death by disease in children older than one. Drug development for childhood cancer remains dependent on adult cancer indications and their potential market. The balance between the investment needed to execute a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) in Europe and an initial Paediatric Study Plan (iPSP) in the US, coupled with the potential financial reward has not been sufficiently attractive to incite the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs for rare indications such as childhood cancer.

METHODS

We propose changes in the timing and nature of the rewards within the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation (PMR) and Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (both currently under review), which would drive earlier initiation of paediatric oncology studies and provide incentives for drug development specifically for childhood indications.

RESULTS

We suggest modifying the PMR to ensure mechanism-of-action driven mandatory PIP and reorganization of incentives to a stepwise and incremental approach. Interim and final deliverables should be defined within a PIP or iPSP, each attracting a reward on completion. A crucial change would be the introduction of the interim deliverable requiring production of paediatric data that inform the go/no-go decisions on whether to take a drug forward to paediatric efficacy trials.

CONCLUSION

Additionally, to address the critical gap in the current framework where there is a complete lack of incentives to promote paediatric-specific cancer drug development, we propose the introduction of early rewards in the Orphan Regulation, with a variant on the US-Creating Hope Act and its priority review vouchers.

Paediatric drug development and evaluation: Existing challenges and recommendations

Despite various international regulatory initiatives over the last 20 years, many challenges remain in the field of paediatric drug development and evaluation. Indeed, drug research and development is still focused essentially on adult indications, thereby excluding many paediatric patients, limiting the feasibility of trials and favouring competing developments. Off-label prescribing persists and the development of age-appropriate dosage forms for children remains limited. Against this background, the members of this panel (TR) recommend the launch of multi-partner exchange forums on specific topics in order to focus new drug research and development on the real, unmet medical needs of children and adolescents, and in keeping with the underlying mechanisms of action. Scientific information sharing and cooperation between stakeholders are also essential for defining reference evaluation methods in each medical field. These forums can be organised through existing paediatric facilities and research networks at the French and European level. The latter are specifically dedicated to paediatric research and can facilitate clinical trial implementation and patient enrolment. Moreover, specific grants and public/private partnerships are still needed to support studies on the repositioning of drugs in paediatric indications, and pharmacokinetic studies aimed at defining appropriate dosages. The development of new pharmaceutical forms, better suited for paediatric use, and the promotion of resulting innovations will stimulate future investments. Initiatives to gather observational safety and efficacy data following off-label and/or derogatory early access should also be encouraged to compensate for the lack of information available in these situations. Finally, the creation of Ethics Committees (EC) with a specific "mother-child" advisory expertise should be promoted to ensure that the current regulation (Jardé law in France) is implemented whilst also taking into account the paediatric specificities in medical trials.

Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Support Clinical Decision-Making in RMS

The foundations of evidence-based practice are the triad of patient values and preferences, healthcare professional experience, and best available evidence, used together to inform clinical decision-making. Within the field of rhabdomyosarcoma, collaborative groups such as the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group (EpSSG) have worked to develop evidence to support this process. We have explored many of the key research developments within this review, including patient and public involvement, decision-making research, research into areas other than drug development, core outcome sets, reporting and dissemination of research, evidence synthesis, guideline development and clinical decision rules, research of research methodologies, and supporting research in RMS.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration

As the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling pathway is activated in many paediatric cancers, it is an important therapeutic target. Currently, a range of targeted MAPK pathway inhibitors are being developed in adults. However, MAPK signals through many cascades and feedback loops and perturbing the MAPK pathway may have substantial influence on other pathways as well as normal development. In view of these issues, the ninth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on MAPK inhibitors. Development of MAPK pathway inhibitors to date has been predominantly driven by adult indications such as malignant melanoma. However, these inhibitors may also target unmet needs in paediatric low-grade gliomas, high-grade gliomas, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia and several other paediatric conditions. Although MAPK inhibitors have demonstrated activity in paediatric cancer, the response rates and duration of responses needs improvement and better documentation. The rapid development and evaluation of combination approaches, based on a deep understanding of biology, is required to optimise responses and to avoid paradoxical tumour growth and other unintended consequences including severe toxicity. Better inhibitors with higher central nervous systempenetration for primary brain tumours and cancers with a propensity for central nervous system metastases need to be studied to determine if they are more effective than agents currently being used, and the optimum duration of therapy with MAPK inhibition needs to be determined. Systematic and coordinated clinical investigations to inform future treatment strategies with MAPK inhibitors, rather than use outside of clinical trials, are needed to fully assess the risks and benefits of these single agents and combination strategies in both front-line and in the refractory/relapse settings. Platform trials could address the investigation of multiple similar products and combinations. Accelerating the introduction of MAPK inhibitors into front-line paediatric studies is a priority, as is ensuring that these studies generate data appropriate for scientific and regulatory purposes. Early discussions with regulators are crucial, particularly if external controls are considered as randomised control trials in small patient populations can be challenging. Functional end-points specific to the populations in which they are studied, such as visual acuity, motor and neuro psychological function are important, as these outcomes are often more reflective of benefit for lower grade tumours (such as paediatric low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma) and should be included in initial study designs for paediatric low-grade glioma. Early prospective discussions and agreements with regulators are necessary. Long-term follow-up of patients receiving MAPK inhibitors is crucial in view of their prolonged administration and the important involvement of this pathway in normal development. Further rational development, with a detailed understanding of biology of this class of products, is crucial to ensure they provide optimal benefit while minimising toxicity to children and adolescents with cancer.

Shaping a research agenda to ensure a successful European health technology assessment: insights generated during the inaugural convention of the European access academy

OBJECTIVES

Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny.

METHODS

Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority).

RESULTS

Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe—Who Decides the Future?

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists’ discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of multi-targeted kinase inhibitors in bone sarcomas: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration

The eighth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. The development of curative, innovative products in these tumours is a high priority and addresses unmet needs in children, adolescents and adults. Despite clinical and investigational use of mTKIs, efficacy in patients with bone tumours has not been definitively demonstrated. Randomised studies, currently being planned or in progress, in front-line and relapse settings will inform the further development of this class of product. It is crucial that these are rapidly initiated to generate robust data to support international collaborative efforts. The experience to date has generally indicated that the safety profile of mTKIs as monotherapy, and in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapy, is consistent with that of adults and that toxicity is manageable. Increasing understanding of relevant predictive biomarkers and tumour biology is absolutely critical to further develop this class of products. Biospecimen samples for correlative studies and biomarker development should be shared, and a joint academic-industry consortium created. This would result in an integrated collection of serial tumour tissues and a systematic retrospective and prospective analyses of these samples to ensure robust assessment of biologic effect of mTKIs. To support access for children to benefit from these novel therapies, clinical trials should be designed with sufficient scientific rationale to support regulatory and payer requirements. To achieve this, early dialogue between academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates is essential. Evaluating feasibility of combination strategies and then undertaking a randomised trial in the same protocol accelerates drug development. Where possible, clinical trials and development should include children, adolescents, and adults less than 40 years. To respond to emerging science, in approximately 12 months, a multi-stakeholder group will meet and review available data to determine future directions and priorities.