Effective delivery of Complex Innovative Design (CID) cancer trials-A consensus statement

A maturity model for the scientific review of clinical trial designs and their informativeness

BACKGROUND

Informativeness, in the context of clinical trials, defines whether a study's results definitively answer its research questions with meaningful next steps. Many clinical trials end uninformatively. Clinical trial protocols are required to go through reviews in regulatory and ethical domains: areas that focus on specifics outside of trial design, biostatistics, and research methods. Private foundations and government funders rarely require focused scientific design reviews for these areas. There are no documented standards and processes, or even best practices, toward a capability for funders to perform scientific design reviews after their peer review process prior to a funding commitment.

MAIN BODY

Considering the investment in and standardization of ethical and regulatory reviews, and the prevalence of studies never finishing or failing to provide definitive results, it may be that scientific reviews of trial designs with a focus on informativeness offer the best chance for improved outcomes and return-on-investment in clinical trials. A maturity model is a helpful tool for knowledge transfer to help grow capabilities in a new area or for those looking to perform a self-assessment in an existing area. Such a model is offered for scientific design reviews of clinical trial protocols. This maturity model includes 11 process areas and 5 maturity levels. Each of the 55 process area levels is populated with descriptions on a continuum toward an optimal state to improve trial protocols in the areas of risk of failure or uninformativeness.

CONCLUSION

This tool allows for prescriptive guidance on next investments to improve attributes of post-funding reviews of trials, with a focus on informativeness. Traditional pre-funding peer review has limited capacity for trial design review, especially for detailed biostatistical and methodological review. Select non-industry funders have begun to explore or invest in post-funding review programs of grantee protocols, based on exemplars of such programs. Funders with a desire to meet fiduciary responsibilities and mission goals can use the described model to enhance efforts supporting trial participant commitment and faster cures.

Frontline and Relapsed Rhabdomyosarcoma (FAR-RMS) Clinical Trial: A Report from the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG)

The Frontline and Relapsed Rhabdomyosarcoma (FaR-RMS) clinical trial is an overarching, multinational study for children and adults with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). The trial, developed by the European Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG), incorporates multiple different research questions within a multistage design with a focus on (i) novel regimens for poor prognostic subgroups, (ii) optimal duration of maintenance chemotherapy, and (iii) optimal use of radiotherapy for local control and widespread metastatic disease. Additional sub-studies focusing on biological risk stratification, use of imaging modalities, including [18F]FDG PET-CT and diffusion-weighted MRI imaging (DWI) as prognostic markers, and impact of therapy on quality of life are described. This paper forms part of a Special Issue on rhabdomyosarcoma and outlines the study background, rationale for randomisations and sub-studies, design, and plans for utilisation and dissemination of results.

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.

From the European Medicines Agency to Project Orbis: new activities and challenges to facilitate UK oncology drug approval following Brexit

The departure of the UK from the European Union (EU) and affiliated European regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency, on Dec 31, 2020, has resulted in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency becoming an independent national regulator. This change has required a fundamental transformation of the UK drug regulatory landscape, creating both opportunities and challenges for future development of oncology drugs. New UK pharmaceutical policies have sought to make the UK an attractive market for drug development and regulatory review, by offering expedited review pathways coupled to strong collaborative relations with other leading international medicines regulators, outside of Europe. Oncology is a key global therapy area for both drug development and regulatory approval, and the UK Government has been keen to show regulatory innovation and international collaboration through approval of new cancer medicines. In this Policy Review, we examine the new UK regulatory frameworks, policies, and global collaborations affecting new oncology drug approvals after departure from the EU. We explore some of the challenges that might lie ahead as the UK creates new and independent regulatory review and approval processes for the next generation of cancer medicines.

Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective

In our 2020 consensus paper, we devised ten recommendations for conducting Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials to evaluate cancer drugs. Within weeks of its publication, the UK was hit by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Large CID trials were prioritised to compare the efficacy of new and repurposed COVID-19 treatments and inform regulatory decisions. The unusual circumstances of the pandemic meant studies such as RECOVERY were opened almost immediately and recruited record numbers of participants. However, trial teams were required to make concessions and adaptations to these studies to ensure recruitment was rapid and broad. As these are relevant to cancer trials that enrol patients with similar risk factors, we have added three new recommendations to our original ten: employing pragmatism such as using focused information sheets and collection of only the most relevant data; minimising negative environmental impacts with paperless systems; and using direct-to-patient communication methods to improve uptake. These recommendations can be applied to all oncology CID trials to improve their inclusivity, uptake and efficiency. Above all, the success of CID studies during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores their efficacy as tools for rapid treatment evaluation.

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

BACKGROUND

Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units

BACKGROUND

Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations.

METHODS

Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols.

RESULTS

We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from multiple countries involved in BC clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, members of drug-regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the perceived benefits and barriers to evaluating ovarian toxicity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample size included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives); half were female. The main reported barrier to ovarian toxicity assessment was that the issue was rarely considered. Reasons included that these data are less important than survival data and are not required for regulatory approval. Overall, most participants believed evaluating the impact of BC treatments on ovarian function is valuable. Suggested strategies to increase ovarian toxicity assessment were to include it in clinical trial design guidelines and stakeholder advocacy.

CONCLUSION

Lack of consideration about measuring ovarian toxicity in BC clinical trials that include premenopausal women suggest that guidelines and stronger advocacy from stakeholders, including regulators, would facilitate its more frequent inclusion in future trials, allowing women to make better informed treatment decisions.

Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

OBJECTIVES

With complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies.

METHODS

A survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination.

RESULTS

A total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were "methodological," equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as "absent," "insufficient," "immature," or "low quality" by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.

Study designs for clinical trials applied to personalised medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Personalised medicine (PM) allows treating patients based on their individual demographic, genomic or biological characteristics for tailoring the 'right treatment for the right person at the right time'. Robust methodology is required for PM clinical trials, to correctly identify groups of participants and treatments. As an initial step for the development of new recommendations on trial designs for PM, we aimed to present an overview of the study designs that have been used in this field.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We searched (April 2020) PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for all reports in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, describing study designs for clinical trials applied to PM. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate resolving disagreements by consensus or by involving a third expert reviewer. We extracted information on the characteristics of trial designs and examples of current applications of these approaches. The extracted information was used to generate a new classification of trial designs for PM.

RESULTS

We identified 21 trial designs, 10 subtypes and 30 variations of trial designs applied to PM, which we classified into four core categories (namely, Master protocol, Randomise-all, Biomarker strategy and Enrichment). We found 131 clinical trials using these designs, of which the great majority were master protocols (86/131, 65.6%). Most of the trials were phase II studies (75/131, 57.2%) in the field of oncology (113/131, 86.3%). We identified 34 main features of trial designs regarding different aspects (eg, framework, control group, randomisation). The four core categories and 34 features were merged into a double-entry table to create a new classification of trial designs for PM.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of trial designs exists and is applied to PM. A new classification of trial designs is proposed to help readers to navigate the complex field of PM clinical trials.

Clinical Trials of Liposomes in Children’s Anticancer Therapy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective

Clinical trials have become essential for driving the development of medicine. However, little is known about the current status of clinical trials on liposomes in children’s anticancer therapy (LCAT). This study aimed to synthesize current finding from clinical trials of LCAT in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study of clinical trials on LCAT was conducted, using studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through December 30, 2021.

Results

A total of 74 eligible trials were identified, accounting for 4.8% (74/1552) of all trials on liposomes for cancer therapy. Among these trials, 70 (94.6%) were interventional trials, and the remaining 4 (5.4%) were observational trials. Of the 70 interventional trials, 63 (90.0%) were for treatment, 48.6% were involving unlabeled allocations, 30.0% were randomized, 52.9% were single group assignment, 71.4% were without masking, 28.6% were Phase 3 trials, 30.0% were Phase 1 trials, and 24.3% were Phase 2 trials. Furthermore, 17 liposomal drugs for 123 types of cancer were investigated in the interventional trials, and these were mainly focused on organic chemicals (43/70, 61.4%). Of these cancers, the highest proportion was leukemia (15.4%), followed by lymphoma (9.8%) and ovarian cancer (8.9%).

Conclusion

High quality, adequately powered, masked, appropriately sized, and randomized clinical trials represent the critical priorities for conducting a high-quality clinical trial. However, most of these trials for LCAT were non-randomized, single group assignment, and non-blinded interventional trials of small scale, with various eligibility criteria and outcome measures. Our analysis highlights the need for improvement in the completeness of study designs curated on clinicalTrials.gov. We urge for decision-makers to avoid adopting entrenched positions about the study design of cancer clinical trials to avoid this problem. As such, tackling the problematic challenges related to cancer and designing efficient trials for cancer requires developing and applying new approaches and multiple strategies.

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years.

METHODS

FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014-March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016-July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017-October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised.

CONCLUSION

Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

Uptake of the multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive platform approach: a trial-registry review of late-phase randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

For medical conditions with numerous interventions worthy of investigation, there are many advantages of a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial approach. However, there is currently limited knowledge on uptake of the MAMS design, especially in the late-phase setting. We sought to examine uptake and characteristics of late-phase MAMS platform trials, to enable better planning for teams considering future use of this approach.

DESIGN

We examined uptake of registered, late-phase MAMS platforms in the EU clinical trials register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and databases: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library and EMBASE. Searching was performed and review data frozen on 1 April 2021. MAMS platforms were defined as requiring two or more comparison arms, with two or more trial stages, with an interim analysis allowing for stopping of recruitment to arms and typically the ability to add new intervention arms.

RESULTS

62 late-phase clinical trials using an MAMS approach were included. Overall, the number of late-phase trials using the MAMS design has been increasing since 2001 and been accelerated by COVID-19. The majority of current MAMS platforms were either targeting infectious diseases (52%) or cancers (29%) and all identified trials were for treatment interventions. 89% (55/62) of MAMS platforms were evaluating medications, with 45% (28/62) of the MAMS platforms having at least one or more repurposed medication as a comparison arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Historically, late-phase trials have adhered to long-established standard (two-arm) designs. However, the number of late-phase MAMS platform trials is increasing, across a range of different disease areas. This study highlights the potential scope of MAMS platform trials and may assist research teams considering use of this approach in the late-phase randomised clinical trial setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019153910.

Real World Data in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3–3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.

Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework

BACKGROUND

The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals.

METHODS

Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making.

RESULTS

We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide.

FURTHER RESEARCH

Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Results of the Seventh Scientific Workshop of ECCO: Precision Medicine in IBD-Disease Outcome and Response to Therapy

Inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] are a heterogeneous spectrum with two extreme phenotypes, Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC], which both represent numerous phenotypical variations. Hence, we should no longer approach all IBD patients similarly, but rather aim to rethink clinical classifications and modify treatment algorithms to usher in a new era of precision medicine in IBD. This scientific ECCO workshop aims to provide a state-of-the-art overview on prognostic and predictive markers, shed light on key questions in biomarker development, propose best practices in IBD biomarker development [including trial design], and discuss the potential for multi-omic data integration to help drive further advances to make precision medicine a reality in IBD.

Early-Phase Interventional Trials in Oral Cancer Prevention

Simple Summary

Oral cancer is a devastating disease with increasing incidence worldwide. Oral epithelial dysplasia (OED) is a potentially malignant disorder and patients with OED are at increased risk of developing oral cancer. Current strategies for management of OED include surgery or close observation and both fail to address the underlying pathogenesis of the disease. There is an urgent need for evidence-based medical treatments for OED to prevent oral cancer development in this cohort. Chemoprevention trials to date have not delivered therapeutic agents for routine clinical practice. Historically, there has been significant heterogeneity in the design of oral cancer chemoprevention trials, with most failing to selectively recruit patients with biopsy-proven OED, which limits the usefulness of the findings in the OED population. The present paper aims to review the current evidence and the methodology of early-phase trials in oral cancer chemoprevention. Novel strategies in oral cancer chemoprevention will also be discussed.

Abstract

The increasing breadth of molecular targets, promise of immune-targeted therapies and repurposed agents have heightened interest in cancer prevention. While, to date, testing of oral cancer chemoprevention strategies has failed to deliver therapeutic agents for routine clinical practice, there remains an urgent need for further clinical research to overcome this hurdle. Patients at the greatest risk of disease stand to benefit the most from inclusion in clinical trials; therefore, there is a need to carefully define this population using validated clinical and molecular markers. Safety, tolerability and the efficacy of interventions is assessed through carefully selected endpoints. These endpoints may include pharmacodynamic, clinical, histological and on-target molecular modifications as an individual or as a composite endpoint. Early-phase trials provide an area of opportunity to explore novel and repurposed agents in the setting of oral cancer chemoprevention, eventually leading to phase III trials with clinical endpoints such as transformation and clinical outcome; these studies are large, lengthy and expensive and should be reserved for the most promising of agents. This paper will explore current evidence in oral cancer chemoprevention, drug repurposing, selection of appropriate endpoints for early-phase trials and novel therapeutic angles in oral cancer chemoprevention.

Randomised Phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

The aims of Phase 1 trials in oncology have broadened considerably from simply demonstrating that the agent/regimen of interest is well tolerated in a relatively heterogeneous patient population to addressing multiple objectives under the heading of early-phase trials and, if possible, obtaining reliable evidence regarding clinical activity to lead to drug approvals via the Accelerated Approval approach or Breakthrough Therapy designation in cases where the tumours are rare, prognosis is poor or where there might be an unmet therapeutic need. Constructing a Phase 1 design that can address multiple objectives within the context of a single trial is not simple. Randomisation can play an important role, but carrying out such randomisation according to the principles of equipoise is a significant challenge in the Phase 1 setting. If the emerging data are not sufficient to definitively address the aims early on, then a proper design can reduce biases, enhance interpretability, and maximise information so that the Phase 1 data can be more compelling. This article outlines objectives and design considerations that need to be adhered to in order to respect ethical and scientific principles required for research in human subjects in early phase clinical trials.

Statistical consideration when adding new arms to ongoing clinical trials: the potentials and the caveats

BACKGROUND

Platform trials improve the efficiency of the drug development process through flexible features such as adding and dropping arms as evidence emerges. The benefits and practical challenges of implementing novel trial designs have been discussed widely in the literature, yet less consideration has been given to the statistical implications of adding arms. MAIN: We explain different statistical considerations that arise from allowing new research interventions to be added in for ongoing studies. We present recent methodology development on addressing these issues and illustrate design and analysis approaches that might be enhanced to provide robust inference from platform trials. We also discuss the implication of changing the control arm, how patient eligibility for different arms may complicate the trial design and analysis, and how operational bias may arise when revealing some results of the trials. Lastly, we comment on the appropriateness and the application of platform trials in phase II and phase III settings, as well as publicly versus industry-funded trials.

CONCLUSION

Platform trials provide great opportunities for improving the efficiency of evaluating interventions. Although several statistical issues are present, there are a range of methods available that allow robust and efficient design and analysis of these trials.

Exploring Heterogeneity in Histology-Independent Technologies and the Implications for Cost-Effectiveness

Background

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and a number of international health technology assessment agencies have recently undertaken appraisals of histology-independent technologies (HITs). A strong and untested assumption inherent in the submissions included identical clinical response across all tumour histologies, including new histologies unrepresented in the trial. Challenging this assumption and exploring the potential for heterogeneity has the potential to impact upon cost-effectiveness.

Method

Using published response data for a HIT, a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) was used to identify heterogeneity in response and to estimate the probability of response for each histology included in single-arm studies, which informed the submission for the HIT, larotrectinib. The probability of response for a new histology was estimated. Results were inputted into a simplified response-based economic model using hypothetical parameters. Histology-independent and histology-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios accounting for heterogeneity were generated.

Results

The results of the BHM show considerable heterogeneity in response rates across histologies. The predicted probability of response estimated by the BHM is 60.9% (95% credible interval 16.0; 91.8%), lower than the naively pooled probability of 74.5%. A mean response probability of 56.9% (0.2; 99.9%) is predicted for an unrepresented histology. Based on the economic analysis, the probability of the hypothetical HIT being cost-effective under the assumption of identical response is 78%. Allowing for heterogeneity, the probability of various approval decisions being cost-effective ranges from 93% to 11%.

Conclusions

Central to the challenge of reimbursement of HITs is the potential for heterogeneity. This study illustrates how heterogeneity in clinical effectiveness can result in highly variable and uncertain estimates of cost-effectiveness. This analysis can help improve understanding of the consequences of histology-independent versus histology-specific decisions.

A platform trial in practice: adding a new experimental research arm to the ongoing confirmatory FLAIR trial in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

The FLAIR trial in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia has a randomised, controlled, open-label, confirmatory, platform design. FLAIR was successfully amended to include an emerging promising experimental therapy to expedite its assessment, greatly reducing the time to reach the primary outcome compared to running a separate trial and without compromising the validity of the research or the ability to recruit to the trial and report the outcomes. The methodological and practical issues are presented, describing how they were addressed to ensure the amendment was a success.

METHODS

FLAIR was designed as a two-arm trial requiring 754 patients. In stage 2, two new arms were added: a new experimental arm and a second control arm to protect the trial in case of a change in practice. In stage 3, the original experimental arm was closed as its planned recruitment target was reached. In total, 1516 participants will be randomised to the trial.

RESULTS

The changes to the protocol and randomisation to add and stop arms were made seamlessly without pausing recruitment. The statistical considerations to ensure the results for the original and new hypotheses are unbiased were approved following peer review by oversight committees, Cancer Research UK, ethical and regulatory committees and pharmaceutical partners. These included the use of concurrent comparators in case of any stage effect, appropriate control of the type I error rate and consideration of analysis methods across trial stages. The operational aspects of successfully implementing the amendments are described, including gaining approvals and additional funding, data management requirements and implementation at centres.

CONCLUSIONS

FLAIR is an exemplar of how an emerging experimental therapy can be assessed within an existing trial structure without compromising the conduct, reporting or validity of the trial. This strategy offered considerable resource savings and allowed the new experimental therapy to be assessed within a confirmatory trial in the UK years earlier than would have otherwise been possible. Despite the clear efficiencies, treatment arms are rarely added to ongoing trials in practice. This paper demonstrates how this strategy is acceptable, feasible and beneficial to patients and the wider research community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01844152 . Registered on August 08, 2014.

Clinical development of cell therapies for cancer: The regulators' perspective

Novel cell therapies for haematological malignancies and solid tumours address pressing clinical need while offering potentially paradigm shifts in efficacy. However, innovative development risks outflanking information on statutory frameworks, regulatory guidelines and their working application. Meeting this challenge, regulators offer wide-ranging expertise and experience in confidential scientific and regulatory advice. We advocate early incorporation of regulatory perspectives to support strategic development of clinical programmes. We examine critical issues and key advances in clinical oncology trials to highlight practical approaches to optimising the clinical development of cell therapies. We recommend early consideration of collaborative networks, early-access schemes, reducing bias in single-arm trials, adaptive trials, clinical end-points supporting risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses, companion diagnostics, real-world data and common technical issues. This symbiotic approach between developers and regulators should reduce development risk, safely expedite marketing authorisation, and promote early, wider availability of potentially transformative cell therapies for cancer.

Clinical trials in the pandemic age: What is fit for purpose?

It is critical to ensure that COVID-19 studies provide clear and timely answers to the scientific questions that will guide us to scalable solutions for all global regions. Significant challenges in operationalizing trials include public policies for managing the pandemic, public health and clinical capacity, travel and migration, and availability of tests and infrastructure. These factors lead to spikes and troughs in patient count by location, disrupting the ability to predict when or if a trial will reach recruitment goals. The focus must also be on understanding how to provide equitable access to these interventions ensuring that interventions reach those who need them the most, be it patients in low resource settings or vulnerable groups.  We introduce a website to be used by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and other funders of the COVID Therapeutics Accelerator that accept proposals for future clinical research. The portal enables evaluations of clinical study applications that focus on study qualities most likely to lead to informative outcomes and completed studies.

Master protocols: New directions in drug discovery

A master protocol is a unifying study construct that includes multiple subgroups and substudies, with patients having same or different diseases and that employ one or multiple drugs to treat it. Initially designed for oncology, master protocol trials are intended to simultaneously evaluate more than one investigational drug and/or more than one cancer type within the same overall trial structure. The ability to use a single infrastructure, trial design, and protocol to simultaneously evaluate multiple drugs and/or disease populations in multiple substudies, speeds up drug development and makes it more efficient. Thus, it is important for the clinical trial professionals to understand both the basic principles of master protocol trials and the way innovative trial designs are starting to change the landscape of clinical research.