Is the European Pediatric Medicine Regulation Working for Children and Adolescents with Cancer?

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.

Impact of the EU Paediatric Medicine Regulation on new anti-cancer medicines for the treatment of children and adolescents

The European Paediatric Medicine Regulation was launched in 2007, aiming to provide better medicines for children. However, its benefit for paediatric patients with cancer has been questioned and the European Paediatric and Orphan Regulations have been under review since November, 2020. To ascertain the effect of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, all paediatric anti-cancer medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency from 1995 to 2022 were identified and reviewed using the agency's public assessment reports, and all Paediatric Investigation Plans granted since 2007 were analysed. 16 new molecular entities (NMEs; ie, a drug that contains an active moiety that had never been approved before) have been approved since the regulation was launched in 2007. The number of paediatric marketing authorisations increased from 2007 but represented the same 17% of all anti-cancer drug marketing authorisations before and after 2007. After 2007, nine (56%) of 16 NMEs were first authorised both in adults and children. For seven NMEs, a first paediatric indication was approved with a median lag time of 6·4 years (range 1·2-21·5 years) after the first authorisation in adults. Half of NMEs were authorised for the treatment of malignancies responsible for only 5·4% of all European childhood cancer deaths, including three medicines for melanoma and thyroid cancer-adult cancers occurring very rarely in children. The increased number of paediatric anti-cancer NMEs after 2007 is a result of the major increase in new medicines authorised for adult cancers since 2005 rather than a direct effect of the Paediatric Regulation. Paediatric development of these NMEs was driven by their adult market and did not address major unmet medical needs of children and adolescents with cancer. An improved, fit-for-purpose regulatory environment that incentivises paediatric drug development based on mechanism of action, better incentives, and a systematic multi-stakeholder engagement, with greater investment from industry, public funding, and non-governmental organisations, will increase the number of new medicines approved in the future to cure more children and adolescents with cancer.

Genomics-Driven Precision Medicine in Pediatric Solid Tumors

Over the past decades, several study programs have conducted genetic testing in cancer patients to identify potential genetic targets for the development of precision therapeutic strategies. These biomarker-driven trials have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes and progression-free survival rates in various types of cancers, especially for adult malignancies. However, similar progress in pediatric cancers has been slow due to their distinguished mutation profiles compared to adults and the low frequency of recurrent genomic alterations. Recently, increased efforts to develop precision medicine for childhood malignancies have led to the identification of genomic alterations and transcriptomic profiles of pediatric patients which presents promising opportunities to study rare and difficult-to-access neoplasms. This review summarizes the current state of known and potential genetic markers for pediatric solid tumors and provides perspectives on precise therapeutic strategies that warrant further investigations.

Guidance for pediatric use in prescription information for novel medicinal products in the EU and the US

Pediatric legislations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have increased medicines approved for use in the pediatric population. Despite many similarities between these frameworks, the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators with a mandate to require pediatric drug development for novel medicinal products compared to US regulators. If used, this could give rise to differences in the guidance for pediatric use provided for clinicians in the two regions. However, the level of discordance in the guidance for pediatric use between the two regions is unknown. This cross-sectional study compares guidance for pediatric use in the EU Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the US Prescription Information (USPI) on the level of indications granted for novel medicinal products approved after the pediatric legislations came in to force in both regions. For all indications granted as of March 2020 for novel medicinal products approved in both regions between 2010 and 2018, we compared the guidance for pediatric use in the EU SmPC and the USPI. The guidance for pediatric use differed for 18% (61/348) of the listed indications covering 21% (45/217) of the products, but without the guidance being contradictory. Where guidance differed, an equal share was observed for indications with a higher level of information for pediatric use in one region over the other (49% (30/61) in the US; 51% (31/61) in the EU). The discrepancies in pediatric information could be explained by differences in regulations for 21% (13/61) of the indications. Only a few conditions and diseases (EU n = 4; US n = 1) were observed to cover potential pediatric use outside the approved adult indication. Although the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators a mandate for requiring pediatric drug development as compared to the US PREA, this was not reflected in the prescription information approved by the two regulatory authorities.

The Challenges of Crizotinib Treatment in a Child With Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Survival in cases involving childhood malignancy is reaching nearly 80% in high-income countries, yet cancer remains one of the leading disease-related causes of death in children. In adult oncology the role of targeted therapies is established, but information regarding the use of these therapies in children is limited, largely because targeted therapies were developed in the context of adult pathologies. The few pediatric reports regarding crizotinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, seem promising. This case of an 8-year-old male with an ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma highlights the challenges of treating children with crizotinib. Our experience with crizotinib was more challenging than described in the limited pediatric reports. Not only was the tumor response poorer than described in the reports, but a substantial amount of side-effects and practical difficulties, such as the method of administration and dosing, made management challenging. Many challenges for the use of targeted therapy in pediatric care currently persist. The limited research in pediatric populations leaves uncertainty regarding efficacy and short- and long-term side effects as well as practical difficulties. Despite a clear underlying biological rationale for certain targeted therapies, their contribution toward improving the outcome of childhood cancer remains largely unclear.

Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials and Collaborative Research in Africa: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

PURPOSE

Adequate clinical services have yet to be established in the majority of African countries, where childhood cancer survival rates vary from 8.1% to 30.3%. The aim of this review is to describe the landscape of pediatric oncology trials in Africa, identify challenges, and offer future opportunities for research collaborations.

METHODS

The study includes data from the International Pediatric Oncology Society (SIOP) global mapping survey, meta-research identifying trials in Africa in ClinicalTrials.gov, and a literature overview of publications on the subject of pediatric oncology clinical research supported by expert opinions on the current situation and challenges.

RESULTS

The SIOP global mapping survey received responses from 47 of 54 African countries, of which 23 have active clinical research programs. A preliminary search of ClinicalTrials.gov showed that only 105 (12.1%) of 868 African oncology studies included children and adolescents. Of these, 53 (50.5%) were interventional trials according to the registry’s classification. The small number of African trials for children and adolescents included palliative care and leukemia trials. In African oncology journals and international pediatric oncology journals, < 1% of the pediatric oncology publications come from Africa. Services and research were strengthened by international collaboration. National studies focused on clinical needs, local challenges, or interventional priorities. Both the literature review and the expert opinions highlight the need to expand clinical research in Africa, despite ongoing regional instability and lack of resources.

CONCLUSION

While a low number of pediatric clinical treatment trials are open to African children and adolescents, clinical research of high quality is being done in Africa. Several initiatives are stimulating the development of the research capacity across the continent, which should increase the publication output.

International Consensus on Minimum Preclinical Testing Requirements for the Development of Innovative Therapies For Children and Adolescents with Cancer

Cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death in children. For the many children who experience relapses of their malignant solid tumors, usually after very intensive first-line therapy, curative treatment options are scarce. Preclinical drug testing to identify promising treatment elements that match the molecular make-up of the tumor is hampered by the fact that (i) molecular genetic data on pediatric solid tumors from relapsed patients and thus our understanding of tumor evolution and therapy resistance are very limited to date and (ii) for many of the high-risk entities, no appropriate and molecularly well-characterized patient-derived models and/or genetic mouse models are currently available. However, recent regulatory changes enacted by the European Medicines Agency (class waiver changes) and the maturation of the RACE for Children act with the FDA, will require a significant increase in preclinical pediatric cancer research and clinical development must occur. We detail the outcome of a pediatric cancer international multistakeholder meeting whose output aims at defining an international consensus on minimum preclinical testing requirements for the development of innovative therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. Recommendations based on the experience of the NCI funded PPTP/C (www.ncipptc.org) and the EU funded ITCC-P4 public private partnership (www.itccp4.eu) are provided for the use of cell-based and mouse models for pediatric solid malignancies, as well as guidance on the scope and content of preclinical proof-of-concept data packages to inform clinical development dependent on clinical urgency. These recommendations can serve as a minimal guidance necessary to jumpstart preclinical pediatric research globally.

Potential of German claims data to characterize utilization of new cancer drugs: the example of crizotinib

Aims: Premarketing clinical trials are typically conducted under controlled conditions and in selected study populations, so real-world information on the utilization of new cancer drugs is limited. We aimed to explore the potential of German claims data in this regard, exemplified by the ALK inhibitor crizotinib, used in non-small-cell lung cancer therapy. Materials & methods: We identified patients treated with crizotinib in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (2004-2017; 20% of the German population) and assessed patient characteristics, treatment and survival. Results: We identified 348 crizotinib-treated patients (56% female; 25% first-line users). After 2 years, overall survival was 48%, with higher survival in men than in women (58 vs 40%). Overall, 76% of patients discontinued crizotinib treatment. Of those, 41% received another ALK inhibitor afterward. Conclusion: The results underline the potential of German claims data for real-world monitoring of oncological drug utilization.

Impact of COVID-19 in paediatric early-phase cancer clinical trials in Europe: A report from the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding real-world impact on cancer clinical research during COVID-19 are scarce. We analysed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of paediatric cancer phase I-II trials in Europe through the experience of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC).

METHODS

A survey was sent to all ITCC-accredited early-phase clinical trial hospitals including questions about impact on staff activities, recruitment, patient care, supply of investigational products and legal aspects, between 1st March and 30th April 2020.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 53 hospitals from 12 countries participated. Challenges reported included staff constraints (30% drop), reduction in planned monitoring activity (67% drop of site initiation visits and 64% of monitoring visits) and patient recruitment (61% drop compared with that in 2019). The percentage of phase I, phase II trials and molecular platforms closing to recruitment in at least one site was 48.5%, 61.3% and 64.3%, respectively. In addition, 26% of sites had restrictions on performing trial assessments because of local contingency plans. Almost half of the units suffered impact upon pending contracts. Most hospitals (65%) are planning on improving organisational and structural changes.

CONCLUSION

The study reveals a profound disruption of paediatric cancer early-phase clinical research due to the COVID-19 pandemic across Europe. Reported difficulties affected both patient care and monitoring activity. Efforts should be made to reallocate resources to avoid lost opportunities for patients and to allow the continued advancement of oncology research. Identified adaptations to clinical trial procedures may be integrated to increase preparedness of clinical research to futures crises.

Gap between pediatric and adult approvals of molecular targeted drugs

To clarify the approval status of molecular targeted antineoplastic drugs in the United States (U.S.), the European Union (E.U.), and Japan (JP), we checked the status of pediatric indications according to the package insert of each drug. A total of 103 drugs were approved for adult patients in at least one of the three regions whereas only 19 drugs were approved for pediatric patients. Sixty-six of 103 drugs (64.1%) had adult indications in the U.S., the E.U., and JP, whereas only three drugs had pediatric indications in all three regions. Abnormalities in six genes (NRAS, ABL1, JAK2, KIT, ALK and BRAF) were common in childhood cancers as well as adult cancers, for which at least one approved drug could be a potentially actionable drug. Although there were 16 candidate drugs that had adult indications for these abnormalities, only three drugs (18.8%) had pediatric indications. We confirmed that there were few molecular targeted antineoplastic drugs with pediatric indications in the U.S., the E.U., and JP compared with the number of approved drugs for adults. Drugs targeting genomic abnormalities which were common in both adult and pediatric cancers were considered to be good candidates for expansion of their indication for pediatric patients.

Determinants of Orphan Drug Prices in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Legislation introduced in 2011 in Germany has instituted an early benefit assessment of newly licensed pharmaceuticals with a subsequent price negotiation. For orphan drugs (ODs) a special legal framework applies, which accounts for the fact that ODs do not have to prove an added benefit over an appropriate comparative therapy previously determined by the decision maker. As, in addition, the content of negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and the payer is confidential, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing the negotiated prices of ODs.

METHODS

Twelve hypotheses on factors influencing the negotiated OD price were derived based on the existing literature and framework agreement between payers and pharmaceutical unions according to German social legislation. Univariate analyses were applied to detect statistically significant correlations between annual therapeutic costs of ODs and the hypothesized factors. Bivariate analyses were used to determine confounding factors. In addition, a multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with backward selection was conducted. Finally, sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Thirty-five ODs were included in the analysis. The univariate analyses and subsequent sensitivity analyses validated five of the 12 hypotheses formulated. Univariate analyses suggest a statistically significant association between the OD price and the (i) therapeutic area; (ii) approval for pediatric care; (iii) treatment population size; (iv) cost of comparative therapies; and (v) European prices. The OLS regression identified European prices as the variable with the strongest association with the negotiated prices.

CONCLUSION

We show that German OD pricing is a multivariate phenomenon. However, due to interdependencies, these results must be treated with caution.

Access to Clinical Trials for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Meta-Research Analysis

BACKGROUND

The 18-year-old age limit for inclusion in clinical trials constitutes a hurdle for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We analyzed the impact of this age barrier on the access of AYAs to cancer trials and novel therapies.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify all the trials including patients with 10 malignancies relevant for AYAs (January 2007 to July 2018). The trials were categorized as pediatric (patients <18 y), adult (≥18 y), and transitional (including adult and pediatric patients). Transitional trials with a lower limit between 12 and 18 years and an upper limit younger than 40 years were considered AYA-specific.

RESULTS

Of 2764 identified trials, 2176 were included: 79% adult, 19% transitional, 2% pediatric. Five trials were AYA-specific. The proportion of academic trials was higher for transitional (69%; 288 of 421) than for adult trials (48%; 832 of 1718) (P < .0001). The total number of new trials increased over the years (156 in 2007; 228 in 2017); however, the number of transitional trials remained stable. The availability of trials increased with age, with a major increase at age 18 years: at age 17 years, 20% (442 of 2176) of trials were potentially accessible vs 95% (2075 of 2176) at 18 years. For trials investigating targeted therapies, this increase was 460% (197 trials available at age 17 years; 901 at 18 years) and for immunotherapies, 1200% (55 at age 17 years; 658 at 18 years).

CONCLUSIONS

AYAs have limited access to cancer trials and innovative therapies, with no improvement over the last decade. The 18-years-old age limit continues to be a major hurdle. Our findings are consistent with the internationally supported idea that age inclusion criteria in oncological trials should be changed.

Enrollment in early-phase clinical trials in pediatric oncology: The experience at Institut Curie

BACKGROUND

The European Paediatric Regulation was introduced in 2007 to facilitate access to new medicines for children. Our study explored accessibility of early-phase trials in pediatric oncology, in line with the European Paediatric Regulation, to identify the reasons for not inviting patients to participate, parents' refusal, or inclusion failure.

PROCEDURE

We conducted a retrospective chart review at Institut Curie, Paris, for all pediatric patients whose cancer progressed despite known effective treatments between July 2010 and December 2013.

RESULTS

Out of 100 patients in the palliative phase, 52 received one or more invitations to participate in early-phase trials. Twenty parents declined the invitation, mainly prioritizing quality of life or fearing constraints. Fourteen inclusions failed despite parental approval, mostly due to rapid clinical deterioration. Five patients received no invitations because no early-phase trials were available. Major reasons for noninclusion in the 43 remaining patients were presence of exclusion criteria or other physical factors, preference for conventional treatment, constraints, psychological factors, and follow-up in another hospital after moving.

CONCLUSIONS

The Paediatric Regulation has led to increased availability of early-phase trials. Better timing of the proposal, designing less constraining early-phase trials, reducing waiting lists, and improving information for parents and children would facilitate pediatric access to new medicines.

Phase II study of ipilimumab in adolescents with unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Ipilimumab is approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in adults; however, little information on the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in younger patients is available.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 to <18 years with previously treated or untreated, unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma received ipilimumab 3 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary end-points were 1-year overall survival and safety.

RESULTS

Over a period of 3.5 years, 12 patients received ipilimumab at either 3 mg/kg (n = 4) or 10 mg/kg (n = 8). The median number of ipilimumab doses was four for 3 mg/kg and three for 10 mg/kg. At 1 year, three of four patients on 3 mg/kg and five of eight patients on 10 mg/kg were alive. Two patients on 10 mg/kg had partial response, and one on 3 mg/kg had stable disease. One patient had durable partial response at 3 years without further treatment, at time of this report. There was one grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse reaction with 3 mg/kg and five with 10 mg/kg. There were no treatment-related deaths. The study was stopped due to slow accrual.

CONCLUSIONS

At >1 year follow-up, ipilimumab demonstrated activity in melanoma patients aged 12 to <18 years, with a similar safety profile as that seen in adults. Our trial highlights the difficulties of enrolling younger patients with rare diseases in clinical trials for treatments that are approved in adults, suggesting adolescents with cancer types occurring predominantly in adults should be considered for inclusion in adult trials of promising new drugs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01696045.

Orphan Drug Regulation: A missed opportunity for children and adolescents with cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncology represents a major sector in the field of orphan drug development in Europe. The objective was to evaluate whether children and adolescents with cancer benefited from the Orphan Drug Regulation.

METHODS

Data on orphan drug designations (ODDs) and registered orphan drugs from 8th August 2000 to 10th September 2016 were collected from the Community Register of medicinal products for human use. Assessment history, product information and existence of paediatric investigation plans were searched and retrieved from the European Medicine Agency website.

RESULTS

Over 16 years, 272 of 657 oncology ODDs (41%) concerned a malignant condition occurring both in adults and children. The five most common were acute myeloid leukaemia, high-grade glioma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, graft-versus-host disease and soft-tissue sarcomas. 74% of 31 marketing authorisations (MAs) for an indication both in adults and children (26 medicines) had no information for paediatric use in their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) at the time of the first MA. Furthermore, 68% still have no paediatric information in their most recently updated SmPC, at a median of 7 years after. Only 15 ODDs (2%) pertained to a malignancy occurring specifically in children and only two drugs received an MA: Unituxin for high-risk neuroblastoma and Votubia for sub-ependymal giant-cell astrocytoma.

CONCLUSION

The Orphan Drug Regulation failed to promote the development of innovative therapies for malignancies occurring in children. Major delays and waivers occurred through the application of the Paediatric Medicines Regulation. The European regulatory environment needs to be improved to accelerate innovation for children and adolescents dying of cancer.

Early phase clinical trials of anticancer agents in children and adolescents - an ITCC perspective

In the past decade, the landscape of drug development in oncology has evolved dramatically; however, this paradigm shift remains to be adopted in early phase clinical trial designs for studies of molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapeutic agents in paediatric malignancies. In drug development, prioritization of drugs on the basis of knowledge of tumour biology, molecular 'drivers' of disease and a drug's mechanism of action, and therapeutic unmet needs are key elements; these aspects are relevant to early phase paediatric trials, in which molecular profiling is strongly encouraged. Herein, we describe the strategy of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) Consortium, which advocates for the adoption of trial designs that enable uninterrupted patient recruitment, the extrapolation from studies in adults when possible, and the inclusion of expansion cohorts. If a drug has neither serious dose-related toxicities nor a narrow therapeutic index, then studies should generally be started at the adult recommended phase II dose corrected for body surface area, and act as dose-confirmation studies. The use of adaptive trial designs will enable drugs with promising activity to progress rapidly to randomized studies and, therefore, will substantially accelerate drug development for children and adolescents with cancer.

From class waivers to precision medicine in paediatric oncology

New drugs are crucially needed for children with cancer. The European Paediatric Regulation facilitates paediatric class waivers for drugs developed for diseases only occurring in adults. In this Review, we retrospectively searched oncology drugs that were class waivered between June, 2012, and June, 2015. 147 oncology class waivers were confirmed for 89 drugs. Mechanisms of action were then assessed as potential paediatric therapeutic targets by both a literature search and an expert review. 48 (54%) of the 89 class-waivered drugs had a mechanisms of action warranting paediatric development. Two (2%) class-waivered drugs were considered not relevant and 16 (18%) required further data. In light of these results, we propose five initiatives: an aggregated database of paediatric biological tumour drug targets; molecular profiling of all paediatric tumours at diagnosis and relapse; a joint academic-pharmaceutical industry preclinical platform to help analyse the activity of new drugs (Innovative Therapy for Children with Cancer Paediatric Preclinical Proof-of-Concept Platform); paediatric strategy forums; and the suppression of article 11b of the European Paediatric Regulation, which allows product-specific waivers on the grounds that the associated condition does not occur in children. These initiatives and a mechanism of action-based approach to drug development will accelerate the delivery of new therapeutic drugs for front-line therapy for those children who have unmet medical needs.

[Early clinical trials in paediatric oncology in Spain: a nationwide perspective]

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is the leading cause of death between the first year of life and adolescence, and some types of diseases are still a major challenge in terms of cure. There is, therefore, a major need for new drugs. Recent findings in cancer biology open the door to the development of targeted therapies against individual molecular changes, as well as immunotherapy. Promising results in adult anti-cancer drug development have not yet been translated into paediatric clinical practice. A report is presented on the activity in early paediatric oncology trials (phase I-II) in Spain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All members of the Spanish Society of Paediatric Haematology Oncology (SEHOP) were contacted in order to identify early clinical trials in paediatric cancer opened between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 30 trials had been opened in this period: 21 (70%) in solid tumours, and 9 (30%) in malignant haemopathies. A total of 212 patients have been enrolled. The majority was industry sponsored (53%). Since 2010, four centres have joined the international consortium of Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC), which has as its aim to develop novel therapies for paediatric tumours. A significant number of new studies have opened since 2010, improving the treatment opportunities for our children. Results of recently closed trials show the contribution of Spanish investigators, the introduction of molecularly targeted agents, and their benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The activity in clinical trials has increased in the years analysed. The SEHOP is committed to develop and participate in collaborative academic trials, in order to help in the advancement and optimisation of existing therapies in paediatric cancer.

More Efficient Compliance with European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration Regulations for Pediatric Oncology Drug Development: Problems and Solutions

The morbidity and mortality toll of pediatric cancer affects the public health of children worldwide, but despite the gains in the fight against cancer, more progress needs to take place against this disease, which is a leading cause of death and chronic disability in children. In response, leading regulatory authorities in the developed world have been ratcheting up their efforts to induce the private sector to expand their research and development focus during drug development for adult cancers to include children. In mid-May 2016, the Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University held a roundtable workshop on pediatric oncology to explore how companies could maximize the efficiency of pediatric assessment of adult cancer indications while minimizing resource expenditures to comply with regulatory requirements under the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Although worldwide a child is diagnosed with cancer every 3 minutes, pediatric cancer is a rare disease, and trial participants are hard to come by. Thus, the market hardly sustains research and development expenses, advances in pharmacogenomics are not reaching down the age scale, and even in the public sector, basic research funding for pediatric cancer pales in comparison to the amount spent on cancer overall. The goal of the roundtable was to acknowledge these problems, and more importantly, to raise the level of awareness of potential solutions, including: more efficient use of the data hierarchy of informative events in clinical trials; new innovative clinical trial platforms for rapid assessment of new drugs in children; new developments in formulation technology; and optimization of speed in pediatric drug development through a multi-stakeholder network collaboration separate from the adult development plan.

Moving toward a paradigm shift in the regulatory requirements for pediatric medicines

Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern over the lack of proper medication for children. This review attempts to evaluate the current progress of EU Pediatric Regulation made since 2007. The lack of properly evaluated pediatric medication has for long been a source of concern in the European Union. The drugs that were used in the past were often not properly evaluated, and dosage was arbitrarily calculated. Therefore, it was necessary to establish the Pediatric Regulation (EC no. 1901/2006) in the EU which would mandate research for pediatric drugs. Current legislations in place not only require mandatory research by pharma industry but also have guidelines to direct the quality of pediatric research performed. The main aim of this regulation was to advance high-quality research and development of pediatric drugs, thereby increasing the availability of safe and effective drugs for children. It also aimed to improve the information available on existing pediatric drugs. It has been 9 years since the pediatric regulation was framed. The pharma industry now sees pediatric research as an integral process of development. Drug companies which develop plans for a new drug, new form of drug, new indication, or new route of administration for adults are obliged to integrate in their development plan similar research for pediatric populations as well.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that the implementation of the current legislation will be reflected better in the future by the marketing of better and safer drugs for the pediatric population. The upcoming assessment to the European Commission in 2017 will further inform us on the impact after 10 years implementation of the legislation. What is Known: • The lack of properly evaluated pediatric medication has for long been a source of concern in the European Union. • Therefore, it was necessary to establish the EU Pediatric Regulation which would mandate research for pediatric drugs. What is New: • It has been 9 years since the pediatric regulation was framed, and the teething problems are slowly being overcome and the regulation is being used with increasing confidence. • As the Regulation is due for revision in 2017, this paper gives a current perspective on the impact of the regulation on availability and access to medicine for children.

Implementation of mechanism of action biology-driven early drug development for children with cancer

An urgent need remains for new paediatric oncology drugs to cure children who die from cancer and to reduce drug-related sequelae in survivors. In 2007, the European Paediatric Regulation came into law requiring industry to create paediatric drug (all types of medicinal products) development programmes alongside those for adults. Unfortunately, paediatric drug development is still largely centred on adult conditions and not a mechanism of action (MoA)-based model, even though this would be more logical for childhood tumours as these have much fewer non-synonymous coding mutations than adult malignancies. Recent large-scale sequencing by International Genome Consortium and Paediatric Cancer Genome Project has further shown that the genetic and epigenetic repertoire of driver mutations in specific childhood malignancies differs from more common adult-type malignancies. To bring about much needed change, a Paediatric Platform, ACCELERATE, was proposed in 2013 by the Cancer Drug Development Forum, Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer, the European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology. The Platform, comprising multiple stakeholders in paediatric oncology, has three working groups, one with responsibility for promoting and developing high-quality MoA-informed paediatric drug development programmes, including specific measures for adolescents. Key is the establishment of a freely accessible aggregated database of paediatric biological tumour drug targets to be aligned with an aggregated pipeline of drugs. This will enable prioritisation and conduct of early phase clinical paediatric trials to evaluate these drugs against promising therapeutic targets and to generate clinical paediatric efficacy and safety data in an accelerated time frame. Through this work, the Platform seeks to ensure that potentially effective drugs, where the MoA is known and thought to be relevant to paediatric malignancies, are evaluated in early phase clinical trials, and that this approach to generate pre-clinical and clinical data is systematically pursued by academia, sponsors, industry, and regulatory bodies to bring new paediatric oncology drugs to front-line therapy more rapidly.

The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia

Background

Although the diagnosis of childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, too many patients still die, more with acute myeloid leukemia than with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The European Union pediatric legislation was introduced to improve pharmaceutical treatment of children, but some question whether the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach is helping children with leukemia. Some have even suggested that the decisions of EMA pediatric committee (PDCO) are counterproductive. This study was designed to investigate the impact of PDCO-issued pediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for leukemia drugs.

Methods

All PIPs listed under “oncology” were downloaded from the EMA website. Non-leukemia decisions including misclassifications, waivers (no PIP), and solid tumors were discarded. The leukemia decisions were analyzed, compared to pediatric leukemia trials in the database http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and discussed in the light of current literature.

Results

The PDCO leukemia decisions demand clinical trials in pediatric leukemia for all new adult drugs without prioritization. However, because leukemia in children is different and much rarer than in adults, these decisions have resulted in proposed studies that are scientifically and ethically questionable. They are also unnecessary, since once promising new compounds are approved for adults, more appropriate, prioritized pediatric leukemia trials are initiated worldwide without PDCO involvement.

Conclusion

EMA/PDCO leukemia PIPs do little to advance the treatment of childhood leukemia. The unintended negative effects of the flawed EMA/PDCO’s standardized requesting of non-prioritized testing of every new adult leukemia drug in children with relapsed or refractory disease expose these children to questionable trials, and could undermine public trust in pediatric clinical research. Institutions, investigators, and ethics committees/institutional review boards need to be skeptical of trials triggered by PDCO. New, better ways to facilitate drug development for pediatric leukemia are needed.

Can kinomics and proteomics bridge the gap between pediatric cancers and newly designed kinase inhibitors?

The introduction of kinase inhibitors in cancer medicine has transformed chronic myeloid leukemia from a fatal disease into a leukemia subtype with a favorable prognosis by interfering with the constitutively active kinase BCR-ABL. This success story has resulted in the development of multiple kinase inhibitors. We are currently facing significant limitations in implementing these kinase inhibitors into the clinic for the treatment of pediatric malignancies. As many hallmarks of cancer are known to be regulated by intracellular protein signaling networks, we suggest focusing on these networks to improve the implementation of kinase inhibitors. This viewpoint will provide a short overview of currently used strategies for the implementation of kinase inhibitors as well as reasons why kinase inhibitors have unfortunately not yet been widely used for the treatment of pediatric cancers. We argue that by using a future personalized medicine strategy combining kinomics, proteomics, and drug screen approaches, the gap between pediatric cancers and the use of kinase inhibitors may be bridged.

Children's clinical cancer trials: what needs to change to allow children access to new cancer drugs?

Despite numerous advances with the incorporation of multimodal treatment, children with cancers have a major unmet need to access new drugs. Still, a reduced number of new targeted drugs is evaluated in pediatric patients and very few of them progress into late phase trials and clinical use. Changes required include: increased collaboration between all stakeholders, improved understanding of disease biology and its incorporation into early clinical trials, faster and more efficient early and late clinical trials, better incentives for pharmaceutical companies and improving access to new drugs across the globe.

Creating a unique, multi-stakeholder Paediatric Oncology Platform to improve drug development for children and adolescents with cancer

Seven years after the launch of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, limited progress in paediatric oncology drug development remains a major concern amongst stakeholders - academics, industry, regulatory authorities, parents, patients and caregivers. Restricted increases in early phase paediatric oncology trials, legal requirements and regulatory pressure to propose early Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs), missed opportunities to explore new drugs potentially relevant for paediatric malignancies, lack of innovative trial designs and no new incentives to develop drugs against specific paediatric targets are some unmet needs. Better access to new anti-cancer drugs for paediatric clinical studies and improved collaboration between stakeholders are essential. The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF), previously Biotherapy Development Association (BDA), with Innovative Therapy for Children with Cancer Consortium (ITCC), European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) and European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents (ENCCA) has created a unique Paediatric Oncology Platform, involving multiple stakeholders and the European Union (EU) Commission, with an urgent remit to improve paediatric oncology drug development. The Paediatric Oncology Platform proposes to recommend immediate changes in the implementation of the Regulation and set the framework for its 2017 revision; initiatives to incentivise drug development against specific paediatric oncology targets, and repositioning of drugs not developed in adults. Underpinning these changes is a strategy for mechanism of action and biology driven selection and prioritisation of potential paediatric indications rather than the current process based on adult cancer indications. Pre-competitive research and drug prioritisation, early portfolio evaluation, cross-industry cooperation and multi-compound/sponsor trials are being explored, from which guidance for innovative trial designs will be provided.

Trends in paediatric clinical pharmacology data in US pharmaceutical labelling

BACKGROUND

There is often a lack of safety and efficacy data in the paediatric population at the time of drug approval. Legislative efforts have promoted clinical pharmacology research in this underserved population. We sought to determine the quantity and quality of paediatric clinical pharmacology data in US drug labelling at the time of initial approval and to evaluate trends over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The labelling data of 213 new molecular entities approved between 2003 and 2012 were systematically reviewed. The type of paediatric pharmacology data present at the time of approval was recorded and stratified by age group. Labelling revisions were analysed for updated paediatric data. The presence of paediatric-specific black-box warnings was noted.

RESULTS

Of the 213 drugs evaluated, 48 had adult-specific indications. Of the remaining 165 medicines, only 47 (28%) had paediatric study data at the time of initial labelling. The number of approved drugs with paediatric data was the greatest in 2005 (8, 44%) and was at its lowest point in 2012 (3, 11%). Only five medicines had neonatal data, with none of the anti-infective agents presenting neonatal information. Seven medications had a paediatric-specific black-box warning. Additional 16 medicines presented paediatric data during general labelling updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite efforts to improve the quality of paediatric clinical pharmacology data, there was not a significant increase in drugs with paediatric data at the time of approval over this 10-year study period. Paediatric drug approvals and labelling revisions continue to lag behind their adult counterparts.

Challenges for children and adolescents with cancer in Europe: the SIOP-Europe agenda

In Europe, 6,000 young people die of cancer yearly, the commonest disease causing death beyond the age of 1 year. In addition, 300,000-500,000 European citizens are survivors of a childhood cancer and up to 30% of them have severe long-term sequelae of their treatment. Increasing both cure and quality of cure are the two goals of the European paediatric haematology/oncology community. SIOPE coordinates and facilitates research, care and training which are implemented by the 18 European study groups and 23 national paediatric haematology/oncology societies. SIOPE is the European branch of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and one of the six founding members of the European Cancer Organisation. SIOPE is preparing its strategic agenda to assure long-term sustainability of clinical and translational research in paediatric malignancies over the next 15 years. SIOPE tackles the issues of equal access to standard care and research across Europe and improvement of long term follow up. SIOPE defined a comprehensive syllabus for training European specialists. A strong partnership with parent, patient and survivor organisations is being developed to successfully achieve the goals of this patient-centred agenda. SIOPE is advocating in the field of EU policies, such as the Clinical Trials Regulation and the Paediatric Medicine Regulation, to warrant that the voice of young people is heard and their needs adequately addressed. SIOPE and the European community are entirely committed to the global agenda against childhood cancers to overcome the challenges to increasing both cure and quality of cure of young people with cancer.

Effective childhood cancer treatment: the impact of large scale clinical trials in Germany and Austria

In Germany and Austria, more than 90% of pediatric cancer patients are enrolled into nationwide disease-specific first-line clinical trials or interim registries. Essential components are a pediatric cancer registry and centralized reference laboratories, imaging review, and tumor board assistance. The five-year overall survival rate in countries where such infrastructures are established has improved from <20% before 1950 to >80% since 1995. Today, treatment intensity is tailored to the individual patient's risk to provide the highest chances of survival while minimizing deleterious late effects. Multicenter clinical trials are internationalized and serve as platforms for further improvements by novel drugs and biologicals.

New drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: the need for novel development pathways

Despite major progress in the past 40 years, 20% of children with cancer die from the disease, and 40% of survivors have late adverse effects. Innovative, safe, and effective medicines are needed. Although regulatory initiatives in the past 15 years in the USA and Europe have been introduced, new drug development for children with cancer is insufficient. Children and families face major inequity between countries in terms of access to innovative drugs in development. Hurdles and bottlenecks are well known-eg, small numbers of patients, the complexity of developing targeted agents and their biomarkers for selected patients, limitations of US and EU regulations for paediatric medicines, insufficient return on investment, and the global economic crisis facing drug companies. New drug development pathways could efficiently address the challenges with innovative methods and trial designs, investment in biology and preclinical research, new models of partnership and funding including public-private partnerships and precompetitive research consortia, improved regulatory requirements, initiatives and incentives that better address these needs, and increased collaboration between paediatric oncology cooperative groups worldwide. Increased cooperation between all stakeholders-academia, parents' organisations and advocacy groups, regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical companies, philanthropic organisations, and government-will be essential.

At the frontier of progress for paediatric oncology: the neuroblastoma paradigm

INTRODUCTION

Neuroblastoma is one of the commonest and deadliest forms of childhood cancer and major initiatives are ongoing to improve the outcome of these patients.

SOURCES OF DATA

Data for this review were obtained from PubMed and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Advances in Neuroblastoma Research.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Collaborative clinical trials have led to major improvements in treatment outcomes for low and intermediate risk neuroblastoma, and international initiatives such as the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group have produced a very refined risk stratification incorporating clinical and biological risk factors.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Despite many efforts, the outcome for high-risk neuroblastoma is still poor and the only new strategy incorporated into frontline treatment is anti-GD2 immunotherapy. It is unclear how new drugs targeting specific molecular aberrations will be incorporated.

GROWING POINTS

Genomic characterization and drug development have undergone major advances in the last 5 years leading to a much deeper understanding of tumour biology as well as active biomarker-driven preclinical and clinical research on new molecules that will hopefully progress faster and more efficiently into frontline combination treatment strategies.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Significant effort remains to be done in integrating the different new strategies, combining new molecularly targeted agents to maximize therapeutic benefit and incorporate immunotherapy together with targeted therapies.