Publication and reporting conduct for pharmacodynamic analyses of tumor tissue in early-phase oncology trials

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.

Analyses of the Rationale and Implementation of Research Biopsies in Oncology Clinical Trials at a Tertiary Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

Biomarkers in clinical trials have led to massive incorporation of research biopsies, with potentially risks and no direct benefit for patients. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released an ethical framework to provide guidance on incorporating research biopsies in cancer clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected biopsy requirements of cancer clinical trials conducted at Institut Jules Bordet (IJB) between 2015 and 2019 to examine adherence with the ASCO Ethical Framework. We used logistic regression models to test the association between the request for biopsy, the request for tissue, and the adherence to the ASCO framework as well as some trial characteristics.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and December 2019, 178 oncological studies were conducted at IJB. Of these, 138 (78%) were sponsored by industry, 132 (74%) were phase II and III studies, and 141 (79%) concerned metastatic disease. Tissue was required for inclusion for 119 (67%) studies, among which 59 required at least one new biopsy. Adherence to ASCO's Ethical Framework was 67% for studies requiring tissue and went down to 39% for studies requiring at least one new biopsy. In multivariate analysis, requests for tissue or new biopsies increased in early-phase studies (p < .001, p < .001, respectively) and in studies investigating innovative treatments (immunotherapy or targeted therapies; p < .01, p = .02). Compliance to the ASCO framework significantly decreased with time (p < .001) and in early-phase studies (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Numerous studies required tissue or new biopsies for exploratory objectives of unknown clinical utility. Requests for tissue increased over the years, whereas compliance to ASCO's Ethical Framework decreased.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In 2019, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) developed an ethical framework to provide guidance on incorporating research biopsies in clinical trials. This study underlines the growing request for tissue in clinical trials with potentially no impact on drug development and no benefit to actual or future patients. Adherence to ASCO's Ethical Framework decreases through time. These results highlight the importance of improving the ethics of research biopsies. ASCO's Ethical Framework offers an opportunity to improve quality of care in clinical research by maximizing scientific utility and allowing for clinically meaningful correlative science and safe access to innovative treatments for a maximum number of patients.

An analysis of research biopsy core variability from over 5000 prospectively collected core samples

Factors correlated with biopsy tissue adequacy and the prevalence of within-biopsy variability were evaluated. Totally, 1149 research biopsies were performed on 686 patients from which 5090 cores were assessed. Biopsy cores were reviewed for malignant percentage (estimated percentage of cells in the core that were malignant) and malignant area (estimated area occupied by malignant cells). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used for the analysis. A total of 641 (55.8%) biopsies contained a core with <10% malignant percentage (inadequate core). The chance of an inadequate core was not influenced by core order, though the malignant area decreased with each consecutive core (p < 0.001). Younger age, bone biopsy location, appendiceal tumor pathology, and responding/stable disease prior to biopsy increased the odds of a biopsy containing zero adequate cores. Within-biopsy variability in core adequacy is prevalent and suggests the need for histological tumor quality assessment of each core in order to optimize translational analyses.

Comparison of Real-Time Fluorescence Confocal Digital Microscopy With Hematoxylin-Eosin-Stained Sections of Core-Needle Biopsy Specimens

IMPORTANCE

Strategies to procure high-quality core-needle biopsy (CNB) specimens are critical for making basic tissue diagnoses and for ancillary testing.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate acquisition of fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) images of interventional radiology (IR)-guided CNB in real time in the radiology suite and to compare the accuracy of FCM diagnoses with those of hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained CNB sections.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this diagnostic study, FCM imaging of IR-guided CNBs was performed in the radiology suite at a major cancer center for patients with an imaging abnormality from August 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019. The time taken to acquire FCM images and the quality of FCM images based on percentage of interpretable tissue with optimal resolution was recorded. The FCM images were read by 2 pathologists and categorized as nondiagnostic, benign/atypical, or suspicious/malignant; these diagnoses were compared with those made using H&E-stained tissue sections. Cases with discrepant diagnosis were reassessed by the pathologists together for a consensus diagnosis. Data were analyzed from June 3 to July 19, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Each IR-guided CNB was stained with 0.6mM acridine orange, subjected to FCM imaging, and then processed to generate H&E-stained sections.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean time taken for acquisition of FCM images, quality of FCM images based on interpretable percentage of the image, and accuracy of diagnostic categorization based on FCM images compared with H&E-stained sections.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients (57 male [54.3%]; mean [SD] age, 63 [13] years) underwent IR-guided CNBs in a mean (SD) of 7 (2) minutes each. The FCM images showed at least 20% of the tissue with optimal quality in 101 CNB specimens (96.2%). The FCM images were accurately interpreted by the 2 pathologists in 100 of 105 cases (95.2%) (2 false-positive and 3 false-negative) and 90 of 105 cases (85.7%) (6 false-positive and 9 false-negative). A reassessment of 14 discordant diagnoses resulted in consensus diagnoses that were accurate in 101 of 105 cases (96.2%) (1 false-positive and 3 false-negative).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The ease of acquisition of FCM images of acceptable quality and the high accuracy of the diagnoses suggest that FCM may be useful for rapid evaluation of IR-guided CNBs. This approach warrants further investigation.

Comparison between protocols and publications for prognostic and predictive cancer biomarker studies

BACKGROUND

Method prespecification in study protocols is important for controlling bias in reports. The primary goal of this study was to assess potential for discordance between study protocols and publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research. Secondary objectives included comparing characteristics of publications with accessible protocols compared to those without.

METHODS

Publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research were identified from 15 major journals, 2012-2015. Protocols were sought online or through repeated queries of corresponding authors. The following four items were extracted: (1) biomarkers, (2) biospecimen/assays, (3) sample size, (4) endpoints. We defined "explicit discordance" as the presence of major inconsistencies on these items.

RESULTS

Of 149 eligible publications, we obtained 19 eligible protocols online (13%). Out of a random sample of 103 publications where protocols were not available online, 12 protocols (12%) were furnished by corresponding authors; 8 (8% of authors) explicitly stated the absence of a protocol. Among 24 retrospective cohort studies, no protocol could be accessed. We found explicit discordance between publications and protocols for 18 studies (58%), in particular choice of biomarkers (36%), biospecimen/assays (6%), or endpoints (29%).

CONCLUSION

Protocols are generally not accessible or not used for cancer biomarker studies. Publications were often explicitly discordant with protocols, particularly regarding biomarkers and endpoints. Our findings point to common unaddressed risk of bias in publications of major journals reporting the relationship between cancer biomarkers and clinical endpoints.

Ethical Framework for Including Research Biopsies in Oncology Clinical Trials: American Society of Clinical Oncology Research Statement

In contrast to clinical biopsies, where tissue is collected to inform patient care, research biopsies are performed for scientific purposes to potentially enhance understanding of the biologic bases of cancer and drug action, thereby improving diagnosis and treatment, but they may offer no direct benefit to participants and have known risks. The widespread use of research biopsies that do not have the potential to directly benefit participants has come under scrutiny, with critics raising ethical concerns related to the adequacy of participant protections, informed consent, and participant understanding of the risks and benefits, as well as the scientific impact of research biopsies on drug development and treatment. This manuscript presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) ethical framework for incorporation of research biopsies in trials. The framework provides guidance on the circumstances to include optional and mandatory biopsies, as well as provides recommendations to stakeholders on necessary steps for improving the conduct of research biopsies overall.

What concentration of tranexamic acid is needed to inhibit fibrinolysis? A systematic review of pharmacodynamics studies

: Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces death because of bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. However, in some settings intravenous injection is not feasible. To find different routes of administration, we first need to determine the minimal concentration of TXA in the blood that is required to inhibit fibrinolysis.We conducted a systematic review of in-vitro and in-vivo pharmacodynamics studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, OviSP, and ISI Web of Science from database inception to November 2017 for all in-vitro (including simulated clotting models) or in-vivo studies reporting the relationship between the TXA concentration in blood or plasma and any reliable measure of fibrinolysis.We found 21 studies of which 20 were in vitro and one was in vivo. Most in-vitro studies stimulated fibrinolysis with tissue plasminogen activator and measured fibrinolysis using viscoelastic, optical density, or immunological assays. TXA concentrations between 10 and 15 mg/l resulted in substantial inhibition of fibrinolysis, although concentrations between 5 and 10 mg/l were partly inhibitory.TXA concentrations of 10-15 mg/l may be suitable targets for pharmacokinetic studies, although TXA concentrations above 5 mg/l may also be effective.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Underreporting of Research Biopsies from Clinical Trials in Oncology

Purpose: Research biopsies are frequently incorporated within clinical trials in oncology and are often a mandatory requirement for trial enrollment. However, limited information is available regarding the extent and completeness of research biopsy reporting.Experimental Design: We identified a cohort of therapeutic clinical trials where research biopsies were performed between January 2005 and October 2010 from an IR database at our institution. Clinical trial protocols were compared with the highest level of corresponding publication as a manuscript or registry report.Results: A total of 866 research biopsies were performed across 46 clinical trials, with a median of 8 patients biopsied/trial and 19 biopsies collected/trial. After a median follow-up time of 4.3 years from trial completion, 36 of 46 trials (78%) reported trial results: published manuscripts (n = 35), or registry report (n = 1). A total of 635 conducted biopsies were reported in 18 of the 46 trials (39%). Six (33%) of these 18 trials underreported the number of biopsies performed. Of 33 trials with mandatory research biopsies, 13 (39%) trials reported on these biopsies. Biopsy complications occurred in 8 trials [n = 39 patients, 6 grade 3/4 adverse events (AE)] but only 1 trial reported these. Factors associated with biopsy reporting included a larger number of biopsies (P ≤ 0.001) and serial biopsies (P < 0.001). Twelve of 16 (75%) trials with >12 biopsies performed reported on these biopsies compared with only 20% (6/30) that performed ≤12 biopsies.Conclusions: Despite ethical obligations to report research biopsies, the majority (61%) of trials do not report results from research biopsies. Complications are rarely reported in these studies. Improved reporting of results and AEs from research biopsies is needed. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6450-7. ©2017 AACR.

Burdensome Research Procedures in Trials: Why Less Is More

A large volume of trials involve invasive, nontherapeutic research procedures, like organ biopsy or sham surgeries, that can pose risks comparable with the experimental treatment itself but that have no direct benefit for volunteers. Though such procedures can enhance the value of clinical investigations, recent studies suggest that many studies involving invasive, nontherapeutic research procedures are not well planned and reported; some studies suggest that their results are often not utilized in the planning of new investigations. This commentary offers recommendations for how investigators, sponsors, and ethics committees might improve evaluation and implementation of studies involving invasive nontherapeutic procedures. We conclude by urging more demanding scientific standards for the rationale, design, and reporting of burdensome, nontherapeutic research procedures-particularly where they involve risk of serious complications.

Implementation of a Multicenter Biobanking Collaboration for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Biomarker Discovery Based on Fresh Frozen Pretreatment Tumor Tissue Biopsies

BACKGROUND

The discovery of novel biomarkers that predict treatment response in advanced cancer patients requires acquisition of high-quality tumor samples. As cancer evolves over time, tissue is ideally obtained before the start of each treatment. Preferably, samples are freshly frozen to allow analysis by next-generation DNA/RNA sequencing (NGS) but also for making other emerging systematic techniques such as proteomics and metabolomics possible. Here, we describe the first 469 image-guided biopsies collected in a large collaboration in The Netherlands (Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment) and show the utility of these specimens for NGS analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Image-guided tumor biopsies were performed in advanced cancer patients. Samples were fresh frozen, vital tumor cellularity was estimated, and DNA was isolated after macrodissection of tumor-rich areas. Safety of the image-guided biopsy procedures was assessed by reporting of serious adverse events within 14 days after the biopsy procedure.

RESULTS

Biopsy procedures were generally well tolerated. Major complications occurred in 2.1%, most frequently consisting of pain. In 7.3% of the percutaneous lung biopsies, pneumothorax requiring drainage occurred. The majority of samples (81%) contained a vital tumor percentage of at least 30%, from which at least 500 ng DNA could be isolated in 91%. Given our preset criteria, 74% of samples were of sufficient quality for biomarker discovery. The NGS results in this cohort were in line with those in other groups.

CONCLUSION

Image-guided biopsy procedures for biomarker discovery to enable personalized cancer treatment are safe and feasible and yield a highly valuable biobank. The Oncologist 2017;22:33-40Implications for Practice: This study shows that it is safe to perform image-guided biopsy procedures to obtain fresh frozen tumor samples and that it is feasible to use these biopsies for biomarker discovery purposes in a Dutch multicenter collaboration. From the majority of the samples, sufficient DNA could be yielded to perform next-generation sequencing. These results indicate that the way is paved for consortia to prospectively collect fresh frozen tumor tissue.

Analysis of Impact of Post-Treatment Biopsies in Phase I Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

The use of biopsy-derived pharmacodynamic biomarkers is increasing in early-phase clinical trials. It remains unknown whether drug development is accelerated or enhanced by their use. We examined the impact of biopsy-derived pharmacodynamic biomarkers on subsequent drug development through a comprehensive analysis of phase I oncology studies from 2003 to 2010 and subsequent publications citing the original trials.

METHODS

We conducted a search to identify and examine publications of phase I oncology studies including the use of biopsy-derived pharmacodynamic biomarkers between 2003 and 2010. Characteristics of those studies were extracted and analyzed, along with outcomes from the biomarker data. We then compiled and reviewed publications of subsequent phase II and III trials citing the original phase I biomarker studies to determine the impact on drug development.

RESULTS

We identified 4,840 phase I oncology publications between 2003 and 2010. Seventy-two studies included a biopsy-derived pharmacodynamic biomarker. The proportion of biomarker studies including nondiagnostic biopsies increased over time (P = .002). A minimum of 1,873 tumor biopsies were documented in the 72 studies, 12 of which reported a statistically significant biomarker result. Thirty-three percent of studies (n = 24) were referenced by subsequent publications specifically with regard to the biomarkers. Only five positive biomarker studies were cited subsequently, and maximum tolerated dose was used for subsequent drug development in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Despite their increased use, the impact of biopsy-derived pharmacodynamic biomarkers in phase I oncology studies on subsequent drug development remains uncertain. No impact on subsequent dose or schedule was demonstrated. This issue requires further evaluation, given the risk and cost of such studies.

Why clinical translation cannot succeed without failure

The high rates of attrition that occur in drug development are widely regarded as problematic, but the failure of well-designed studies benefits both researchers and healthcare systems by, for example, generating evidence about disease theories and demonstrating the limits of proven drugs. A wider recognition of these benefits will help the biomedical research enterprise to take full advantage of all the information generated during the drug development process.

Ethics of Cancer Gene Transfer Clinical Research

Translation of cancer gene transfer confronts many familiar-and some distinctive-ethical challenges. In what follows, I survey three major ethical dimensions of cancer gene transfer development. Subheading 1 centers on the ethics of planning, designing, and reporting animal studies. Subheading 2 describes basic elements of human subjects protection as pertaining to cancer gene transfer. In Subheading 3, I describe how cancer gene transfer researchers have obligations to downstream consumers of the evidence they produce.

Reporting practices of pharmacodynamic studies involving invasive research procedures in cancer trials

Background:

Tumour biopsy for pharmacodynamic (PD) study is increasingly common in early-phase cancer trials. As they are non-diagnostic, the ethical justification for such procedures rests on their knowledge value. On the premise that knowledge value is related to reporting practices and outcome diversity, we assessed in a sample of recent invasive PD studies within cancer trials.

Methods:

We assessed reporting practices and outcomes for PD studies in a convenience sample of cancer trials published from 2000 to 2010 that employed invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement. Extracted data were used to measure outcome reporting in individual trials. Using a reporting scale we developed for exploratory purposes, we tested whether reporting varied with study characteristics, such as funding source or drug novelty.

Results:

Reporting varied widely within and across studies. Some practices were sporadically reported, including results of all planned tests (78% trials reporting), use of blinded histopathological assessment (43% trials reporting), biopsy dimensions (38% trials reporting), and description of patient flow through PD analysis (62%). Pharmacodynamic analysis as a primary end point and mandatory biopsy had statistically significant positive relationships with overall quality of reporting. A preponderance of positive results (61% of the studies described positive PD results) suggests possible publication bias.

Conclusion:

Our results highlight the need for PD-reporting guidelines, and suggest several avenues for improving the risk/benefit for studies involving invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement.

How can attrition rates be reduced in cancer drug discovery?

Attrition is a major issue in anticancer drug development with up to 95% of drugs tested in Phase I trials not reaching a marketing authorisation making the drug development process enormously costly and inefficient. It is essential that this problem is addressed throughout the whole drug development process to improve efficiency which will ultimately result in increased patient benefit with more profitable drugs. The approach to reduce cancer drug attrition rates must be based on three pillars. The first of these is that there is a need for new pre-clinical models which can act as better predictors of success in clinical trials. Furthermore, clinical trials driven by tumour biology with the incorporation of predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers would be beneficial in drug development. Finally, there is a need for increased collaboration to combine the unique strengths between industry, academia and regulators to ensure that the needs of all stakeholders are met.