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

Overview of systemic anticancer treatments: conventional cytotoxics

Cancer treatment is rapidly evolving and this review provides healthcare professionals who are not specialists in cancer therapeutics with a broad overview of the role of cancer systemic therapy, with a particular focus on chemotherapy.Historically, the majority of cytotoxic chemotherapy was used in patients with incurable or metastatic disease with the goal of disease control and symptom palliation. Now, with the advent of more effective, targeted systemic therapies (incorporating both cytotoxic and non-cytotoxic agents), systemic therapies are being used in more diverse treatment settings, both to increase the likelihood of cure and to induce prolonged disease remission.Chemotherapy (henceforth referring specifically to cytotoxic chemotherapy) remains important for the treatment of many cancer types. This article will review the principles of chemotherapy and the first-line systemic treatment paradigm of different cancer types. The potential toxicities of chemotherapy will also be described.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite recent metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) therapeutic innovations a comprehensive synthesis of patient outcome and risk-benefit assessment of phase 1/2 trials is missing. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess efficacy, safety, and trends over time for phase 1 and 2 mCRC trials by examining clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall response rate (ORR), grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE), and discontinuation due to AE.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched PubMed and Embase for publications of phase 1/2 trials between 2010-2021. Trials reporting on new therapies for treatment-refractory mCRC were included.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 4175 unique reports, of which 258 publications were eligible. These publications report data of 277 unique treatment arms. Overall ORR was 6 %, CBR was 27 % in phase 1 and 36 % in phase 2 trials. CBR increased from 23 % in 2010-2012 to 42 % in 2019-2021. Compared to 2010-2012, trials in 2019-2021 more often tested immunomodulators (4 % vs 23 %), included molecularly preselected populations (4 % vs 38 %) and younger patients (median age<60 44 % vs 66 %). Grade 3 + AE occurred in 35 % of patients, most frequently in trials investigating targeted treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment efficacy in phase 1/2 trials is modest but improved from 2010 to 2021. This improvement is accompanied by a shift towards testing in a younger, fitter, and more strictly molecularly preselected population, as well as an increased focus on targeted and immunotherapies.

Tumor fraction-based prognostic tool for cancer patients referred to early phase clinical trials

Selecting patients for phase I cancer trials is crucial to ensure a sufficient life expectancy. Frail patients, better suited for palliative care, should not be exposed to new drugs with minimal benefit. Enrolling patients at high risk of early death can jeopardize the study. Our analysis of two large precision medicine studies used tumor fraction from ctDNA to develop a predictive model, demonstrating notable predictive accuracy and aiding in patient selection.

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.

Optimizing care in early phase cancer trials: The role of palliative care

Advancements in cancer treatment have led to improved survival rates, with early phase clinical trials (EPCTs) serving as important initial steps in evaluating novel therapies. Recent studies have shown that response rates in these trials have doubled in the last twenty years. Patients who enroll on EPCTs have advanced cancer and heightened symptomatology yet maintain a robust performance status that qualifies them for clinical trial participation. It is well established that many of these patients have needs that can be addressed by palliative care, including symptom management, value assessments, advance care planning, and psychosocial and spiritual support. Several small studies have aimed to identify the most beneficial palliative care intervention for this cohort of patients, ranging from formal clinic-based multidisciplinary palliative care interventions to home-based interventions. While outcomes have trended towards benefit for patients, especially pertaining to psychological well-being, most studies were not powered to detect additional benefits for improved physical symptom management, reduction in care utilization or increased length of time on trial. In this review, we discuss the unique palliative care needs of this population and what we can learn from results of past interventional studies. We advocate for a tailored palliative care approach that acknowledges the time toxicity experienced by patients enrolled in EPCTs and address challenges posed by shortages within the palliative care workforce.

Outcomes Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Advanced Cancers in Phase 1 Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups (eg, Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black patients) have low representation in clinical trials, especially in phase 1 trials in cancer. These trials represent valuable options for patients with advanced cancer who experience disease progression with standard therapy.

Objective

To determine whether the benefit of enrollment to phase 1 cancer trials extends to Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black patients as much as it does for non-Hispanic White patients.

Data Sources

Patient records at a single institution from January 1999 to December 2016 were reviewed. Treatment-related responses, toxic effects, and deaths were recorded.

Study Selection

All phase 1 studies were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data underwent independent extraction by multiple observers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), assessed using univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses.

Results

A total of 738 patients (median [range], 60 [22-93] years; 467 [63.3] female) including 197 Hispanic patients (26.7%), 238 non-Hispanic Black patients (32.2%), and 282 non-Hispanic White patients (38.2%), were enrolled in 64 phase 1 trials, including 33 cytotoxic trials (51.5%), 21 biologic trials (32.8%), and 10 combined therapy trials (15.6%). The primary cancer diagnoses were colorectal (187 patients [25.3%]), ovarian (141 patients [19.1%]), lung (58 patients [7.9%]), uterine (49 patients [6.6%]), and breast (41 patients [5.6%]). Patients underwent a median (range) of 3 (0-13) therapies prior to trial enrollment. Among 558 patients evaluated for response, the clinical benefit rate (ie, stable disease plus response rates) was 49.1%, and the overall response rate was 6.5%. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematological toxic effects were observed in 27.8% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.3%) of patients and grade 3 or 4 hematological toxic effects were observed in 19.7% (95% CI, 17.0%-22.8%) of patients. The treatment-related mortality rate was 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.9%). Median OS was 9.6 (95% CI, 8.2-11.0) months among Hispanic patients, 8.3 (95% CI, 6.7-10.4) months among non-Hispanic Black patients, and 9.8 (95% CI, 8.5-11.4) months among non-Hispanic White patients (P = .13). In a multivariable analysis, age older than 60 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or greater, more than 2 metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase grade 1 or 2, grade 2 or greater low albumin, grade 1 or greater total bilirubin, and grade 2 or greater anemia were associated with worse prognosis, whereas leukocytosis greater than grade 1 was associated with better OS.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis assessing outcomes in phase 1 cancer trials among patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had benefits similar to those of non-Hispanic White patients.

Opportunities for Expanding the Integration of Palliative Care in Oncology Care

Patients with cancer and their families comprise a significant population served by palliative care. Close collaboration between oncology clinicians and palliative care teams has demonstrated improved patient-centered care, especially when this care is integrated early in the course of the disease. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently released their updated clinical practice guidelines for palliative care in oncology, which provide new opportunities for collaboration to expand the scope of care.

Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

Changing trends in phase 1 oncology clinical trials

The Ph1 oncology trial landscape is evolving in response to advances in understanding of cancer biology, novel drug discovery platforms, and therapeutic modalities. To uncover emerging trends in oncology drug development, we identified 7,061 solid tumour Ph1 trials (2009-2021) from clinicaltrials.gov to determine the numbers of trials commenced, therapeutic classes, combinations, tumour streams, and geographical distribution. Ph1 oncology trials increased by an average of 5.2 %/year. There was a significant relative increase in the number of immunotherapy studies and a significant relative decrease in trials containing chemotherapy. Between 2009 and 2021, multi-agent combination trials outnumbered single-agent trials and single-class trials outnumbered multimodal combination trials. The proportion conducted in the Asia-Pacific significantly increased. Multiregional trials decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing projected trial numbers in Asia-Pacific and Europe whilst increasing single-region trials in North America. Further study is required to track recovery post-pandemic, and the emergence of novel modalities (e.g. ADCs and cellular therapies).

Preclinical Modeling of Pathway-Targeted Therapy of Human Lung Cancer in the Mouse

Animal models, particularly genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), continue to have a transformative impact on our understanding of the initiation and progression of hematological malignancies and solid tumors. Furthermore, GEMMs have been employed in the design and optimization of potent anticancer therapies. Increasingly, drug responses are assessed in mouse models either prior, or in parallel, to the implementation of precision medical oncology, in which groups of patients with genetically stratified cancers are treated with drugs that target the relevant oncoprotein such that mechanisms of drug sensitivity or resistance may be identified. Subsequently, this has led to the design and preclinical testing of combination therapies designed to forestall the onset of drug resistance. Indeed, mouse models of human lung cancer represent a paradigm for how a wide variety of GEMMs, driven by a variety of oncogenic drivers, have been generated to study initiation, progression, and maintenance of this disease as well as response to drugs. These studies have now expanded beyond targeted therapy to include immunotherapy. We highlight key aspects of the relationship between mouse models and the evolution of therapeutic approaches, including oncogene-targeted therapies, immunotherapies, acquired drug resistance, and ways in which successful antitumor strategies improve on efficiently translating preclinical approaches into successful antitumor strategies in patients.

Association for Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry conference 2022: impending change, innovations and future challenges

The Association for Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry's annual meeting focused on current and impending challenges facing the United Kingdom's (UK) pharmaceutical industry and how these opportunities can inspire innovation and best practice. The UK pharmaceutical landscape is still evolving following Brexit and learnings from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As such, the UK's clinical community is in a unique position to steer innovation in a meaningful direction. With the continuation of remote forms of working, further opportunities have arisen to support novel practices away from the clinic. The keynote speaker reflected on clinical development over the past 40 years and how the industry must continue to concentrate on patient welfare. The future of drug development was discussed regarding challenges associated with developing translational gene therapies, and the status of investment markets analyzed from a business strategy and consulting perspective. The patient viewpoint was a core theme throughout the conference with patient-centric blood sampling and decentralized clinical trials providing suggestions for how the industry can save costs and increase efficiency. Moreover, the patient perspective was central to a debate over whether ethics requirements should be the same for oncology patients taking part in first-in-human studies as those for healthy subjects. Discussions continued around the changing roles of the Qualified Person and Principal Investigators which underpins how sponsors may want to run future trials in the UK. Lessons learned from conducting challenge trials in healthy volunteers and patients were discussed following a presentation from the serving Chair of the COVID-19 challenge ethics committee. The current state of interactions with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency were also explored. It was considered how the immediate future for the UK clinical trials community is inevitably still linked with Europe; the newly implemented European Medicines Agency Clinical Trials Information System has been met with lukewarm responses, providing a promising opportunity to ensure UK Phase I units continue to play a vital role in global research.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposures

Travel time and distance.

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Integrating Early-Stage Drug Development with Clinical Networks; Challenges and Opportunities: The City of Hope Developing Experience

Recent data suggest that patients with advanced cancer who participate in biomarker/genomically informed early-stage clinical trials experience clinical benefit. While most early-stage clinical trials are conducted in major academic centers, the majority of cancer patients in the United States are treated in community practices. Here, we describe ongoing efforts at the City of Hope Cancer Center to integrate our network community oncology clinical practices into our academic, centralized biomarker/genomic-driven, early-stage clinical trial program to build an understanding of the approaches that provide the benefits of early-stage clinical trial participation to community patients. Our efforts include three key initiatives: the development of a virtual "Refractory Disease" phase 1 trial matching televideo clinic, the construction of infrastructure to support the expansion of phase 1 clinical trials to a distant regional clinical satellite hub, and the implementation of an enterprise-wide precision medicine, germline, and somatic testing program. Our work at City of Hope may serve as an example to facilitate similar efforts at other institutions.

Structural Sexism and Cancer Care: The Effects on the Patient and Oncologist

Despite progress toward equity within our broad social context, the domains of gender as a social, cultural, and structural variable continue to exert influence on the delivery of oncology care. Although there have been vast advances in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of cancer and significant improvements in clinical care, disparities in cancer care for all women-including cisgender, transgender, and gender diverse women-persist. Similarly, despite inclusion within the oncology physician workforce, women and gender minorities, particularly those with additional identities under-represented in medicine, still face structural barriers to clinical and academic productivity and career success. In this article, we define and discuss how structural sexism influences both the equitable care of patients with cancer and the oncology workforce and explore the overlapping challenges in both realms. Solutions toward creating environments where patients with cancer of any gender receive optimal care and all physicians can thrive are put forward.

Project Optimus, an FDA initiative: Considerations for cancer drug development internationally, from an academic perspective

Modern cancer therapeutics are increasingly targeted, bringing the promise of new and improved activity, alongside better tolerability. However, while many are indeed resulting in dramatic improvements in disease control and patient survival, short- and long-term tolerability has not always accompanied it. The choice of dose and schedule is often in the upper range of the therapeutic window, driven by the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) model of previous cytotoxic agents. There is increasing recognition that this needs to change, by taking a more holistic approach to determine the optimal dose for desired biological effects and tolerability early in clinical development. In the US, the FDA's Oncology Centre of Excellence is addressing this via the Project Optimus initiative: aiming to reform dose optimisation studies so that they can demonstrate the most appropriate dose selection. Early clinical development will need to demonstrate the dose-exposure, -pharmacodynamic, -toxicity and -activity relationships, including randomised evaluations for dose selection. Regulatory agencies outside the US are similarly exploring this. Along with Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Singapore and Switzerland, the UK participates in Project Orbis, a collaborative program with the FDA to accelerate patient access to new cancer medicines through coordinated regulatory review. Close alignment with Project Optimus will be important internationally and will require changes across industry, including for academic units and small biotech. We discuss our perspective on the implications, and opportunities, for early phase oncology trials as a uniquely charity-funded drug development facility, the Centre for Drug Development within the Cancer Research UK charity.