Correcting the ASCO position on phase I clinical trials in cancer

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

The low expectation of clinical benefit from phase 1 cancer therapeutics trials might negatively affect patient and physician participation, study reimbursement, and slow the progress of oncology research. Advances in cancer drug development, meanwhile, might have favourably improved treatment responses; however, little comprehensive data exist describing the response and toxicity associated with phase 1 trials across solid tumours. The aim of the study is to evaluate the trend of toxicity and response in phase 1 trials for solid tumours over time.

METHODS

We analysed patient-level data from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigator-initiated phase 1 trials for solid tumours, from Jan 1, 2000, to May 31, 2019. We assessed risks of treatment-related death (grade 5 toxicity ratings possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to treatment), all on-treatment deaths (deaths during protocol treatment regardless of attribution), grade 3-4 toxicity, and proportion of overall response (complete response and partial response) and complete response rate in the study periods of 2000-05, 2006-12, and 2013-2019, and evaluated their trends over time. We also analysed cancer type-specific and investigational agent-specific response, and analysed the trend of response in each cancer type over time. Univariate associations of overall response rates with patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status, BMI, albumin concentration, and haemoglobin concentration), enrolment period, investigational agents, and trial design were assessed using risk ratio based on the modified Poisson regression model.

FINDINGS

We analysed 465 protocols that enrolled 13 847 patients using 261 agents. 144 (31%) trials used a monotherapy and 321 (69%) used combination therapies. The overall treatment-related death rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·5-0·8) across all periods. Risks of treatment-related deaths did not change over time (p=0·52). All on-treatment death risk during the study period was 8·0% (95% CI 7·6-8·5). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological; grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 2336 (16·9%) of 13 847 patients, lymphopenia in 1230 (8·9%), anaemia in 894 (6·5%), and thrombocytopenia in 979 (7·1%). The overall response rate for all trials during the study period was 12·2% (95% CI 11·5-12·8; 1133 of 9325 patients) and complete response rate was 2·7% (2·4-3·0; 249 of 9325). Overall response increased from 9·6% (95% CI 8·7-10·6) in 2000-05 to 18·0% (15·7-20·5) in 2013-19, and complete response rates from 2·5% (2·0-3·0) to 4·3% (3·2-5·7). Overall response rates for combination therapy were substantially higher than for monotherapy (15·8% [15·0-16·8] vs 3·5% [2·8-4·2]). The overall response by class of agents differed across diseases. Anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with higher overall response rate for bladder, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. DNA repair inhibitors were associated with higher overall response rate in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. The rates of overall response over time differed markedly by disease; there were notable improvements in bladder, breast, and kidney cancer and melanoma, but no change in the low response of pancreatic and colon cancer.

INTERPRETATION

During the past 20 years, the response rate in phase 1 trials nearly doubled without an increase in the treatment-related death rate. However, there is significant heterogeneity in overall response by various factors such as cancer type, investigational agent, and trial design. Therefore, informed decision making is crucial for patients before participating in phase 1 trials. This study provides updated encouraging outcomes of modern phase 1 trials in solid tumours.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Pattern of Treatment Initiation and Outcomes for Patients With Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Ontario

Introduction: The impact of diagnosis and treatment delay on outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is not well understood. In this study, we examined the effect of the length of time to the first chemotherapy treatment initiation and the other factors affecting overall survival.

Methods: This retrospective study used data from the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences and identified 4520 patients in Ontario who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC between 2007 and 2016, treated using chemotherapy. We adjusted the analysis for location (rural vs urban), gender, distance from the nearest cancer center, first chemotherapy treatment used, income, and age. 

Results: Type of the chemotherapy, length of time to the first treatment, and distance from the nearest cancer center had a statistically significant impact on survival. Paclitaxel was associated with decreased risk of death compared to vinorelbine (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.835, 95%CI 0.753-0.925), gemcitabine (HR=0.916, 95%CI 0.998-0.826), and docetaxel (HR=0.771, 95%CI 0.994-0.513). Every additional 10 km distance from the nearest cancer center was associated with a 0.5% increased risk of death (HR=1.005, 95%CI 1.000-1.010). A longer time to the first treatment was associated with increased survival. In fact, every 10 days increase in wait time was associated with a 0.5% decrease in the risk of death (HR=0.995, 95%CI 0.993-0.998). 

Conclusion: Chemotherapy treatment using paclitaxel and living closer to the cancer center is associated with better survival. A longer time between diagnosis and treatment leading to better survival could perhaps be explained by patients on the "sicker" end of the spectrum receiving treatment sooner.

Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology

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

Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute

PURPOSE

Cancer drug development has largely shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to targeted treatment in the past two decades. Although previous studies have highlighted improvement in response rates in recent phase I trials, disease-focused reporting is limited.

METHODS

We integrated patient-level data for patients with hematologic malignancies who participated in phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program between January 2000 and May 2019 and estimated the trend of grade 5 toxicity and response by disease subtype over time.

RESULTS

We analyzed 161 trials involving 3,308 patients, all of whom were assessed for toxicity and 2,404 of whom were evaluable for response to therapy. The overall rate of grade 5 toxicities was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.27), with no significant change in the rate over time. Baseline characteristics associated with higher risk of grade 5 toxicity were age and performance status ≥ 2 at enrollment. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate for all trials during the study period were 25.1% and 14.7%, respectively. A significant increase in both ORR and CR rate was observed over time (ORR: 18.5% in 2000-2005, 25.9% in 2006-2012, and 50.6% in 2013-2019, P < .001). ORR in phase I trials varied across disease subtypes: 20.2% in acute myeloid leukemia, 9.1% in myelodysplastic syndrome, 43.2% in lymphoma, 42.9% in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 15.1% in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 16.5% in myeloma.

CONCLUSION

Over time, the ORR and CR rates in phase I trials for hematologic malignancy have improved meaningfully, whereas the rate of toxicity-related death remains stable. This study provides broad experience that physicians can use when discussing the potential outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy considering participation in phase I trials.

Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single-Agent Anticancer Therapies

PURPOSE

Phase I trials are a crucial step in the evaluation of new cancer therapies. Historically, low rates of response (5%) and comparably high rates of death from toxicities (0.5%) have contributed to debates on the ethics and orientation of these trials. With the introduction of novel targeted therapies, a contemporary estimate is needed.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports of phase I oncology trials of single-agent targeted immunomodulators, molecularly targeted therapies, and antiangiogenic agents, published between January 2015 and July 2018. Adult and pediatric trials of solid and hematological malignancies were eligible. Treatment-related adverse events (grades 3, 4, and 5) and response rates (objective, complete, and partial) were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight trial reports, covering 6,707 patients, were included. The rate of treatment-related deaths was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1), while 13.2% of patients (9.5 to 17.3) experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicity. The combined objective response rate was 6.4% (4.6 to 8.5). Among trials using tumor biomarkers as eligibility criteria, the objective response rate was higher (12.0% [7.3 to 17.6] compared to 4.9% [2.5 to 5.7], P value < .01). The same was true of trials focusing on a single tumor type (13.4% [8.2 to 19.4]) compared to multiple tumor types (3.8% [2.5 to 5.3], P value < .01).

CONCLUSION

Reduced grade 5 risk and improved benefit appears to exist in modern phase I oncology trials, particularly in trials that target single tumor types and integrate biomarkers as eligibility criteria. These findings provide information to support informed consent discussions, highlight the need for improved reporting of phase I oncology trials, and provide direction for optimizing their design.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.

Before It's Too Late: Multistakeholder Perspectives on Compassionate Access to Investigational Drugs for Pediatric Patients With Cancer

Patients and their families, physicians, drug companies, and regulatory agencies have common goals: to find effective therapies for life-threatening conditions. In oncology, the lines between clinical research and treatment are often blurred; parents and physicians of patients who have exhausted standard-of-care treatments and cannot participate in a clinical trial are likely to consider seeking compassionate use access to investigational drugs; however, knowledge and perspectives about compassionate use may differ among these groups. There are unique considerations associated with providing compassionate use to children diagnosed with cancer, including evaluation for potential developmental toxicities, the need for pediatric-specific dosing and formulations, informed consent, and, when appropriate, patient assent. Positive impacts of providing access to investigational therapies to children include potential treatment benefits to patients who obtain investigational agents as well as benefits to future patients if data from expanded access support drug development for childhood cancer. Challenges for physicians seeking compassionate use access to investigational drugs for their patients include obtaining the drug sponsor's agreement to provide the investigational drug as well as lack of knowledge about the process and regulatory requirements. Clinical trials in oncology provide the possibility of therapeutic benefit for pediatric patients; when feasible and warranted, these benefits should also be available to patients on a compassionate use basis outside of trials.