Accelerating Pediatric Cancer Drug Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Pediatric Master Protocols

Unlocking the Potential: A Systematic Review of Master Protocol in Pediatrics

The use of master protocols allows for innovative approaches to clinical trial designs, potentially enabling new approaches to operations and analytics and creating value for patients and drug developers. Pediatric research has been conducted for many decades, but the use of novel designs such as master protocols in pediatric research is not well understood. This study aims to provide a systematic review on the utilization of master protocols in pediatric drug development. A search was performed in September 2022 using two data sources (PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) and included studies conducted in the past10 years. General study information was extracted such as study type, study status, therapeutic area, and clinical trial phase. Study characteristics that are specific to pediatric studies (such as age of the participants and pediatric drug dosing) and important study design elements (such as number of test drug arms and whether randomization and/or concurrent control was used) were also collected. Our results suggest that master protocol studies are being used in pediatrics, with platform and basket trials more common than umbrella trials. Most of this experience is in oncology and early phase studies. There is a rise in the use starting in 2020, largely in oncology and COVID-19 trials. However, adoption of master protocols in pediatric clinical research is still on a small scale and could be substantially expanded. Work is required to further understand the barriers in implementing pediatric master protocols, from setting up infrastructure to interpreting study findings.

Timing for First-in-Minor Clinical Trials of New Cancer Drugs

OBJECTIVES

To describe the delay for first-in-minor cancer clinical trials and its relationship with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

STUDY DESIGN

We used ClinicalTrials.gov to create a sample of pediatric-relevant cancer drugs starting efficacy testing in adults from 2006 through 2011. We characterized the delay between first-in-adult efficacy trials and first-in-minor trials. We also assessed the proportion of drugs evaluated in minors that failed to gain approval, the proportions that were not evaluated in minors before receiving the FDA approval, and whether shorter delay was associated with larger effect sizes or greater probability of regulatory approval.

RESULTS

Thirty-four percent of the 185 drugs in our cohort were evaluated in minors; the median delay to clinical trials was 4.16 years. Of all drugs, 17% received the FDA approval, 41% of which were never tested in minors before licensing. Of the 153 drugs not attaining approval, 78% were not evaluated in minors. Earlier testing did not significantly predict greater response rates (P = .13). Drugs not attaining regulatory approval were evaluated significantly earlier (3.0 for drugs not approved vs 5.4 years delayed testing for approved drugs, P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

New cancer drugs were typically evaluated in minors years after adult efficacy evaluation. This delay likely eliminated some drugs lacking desirable pharmacology before pediatric testing. However, some drugs that were eliminated may have had activity in pediatric indications. Approaches for prioritizing drugs for pediatric testing warrants further consideration.

Phase I trial of Ganitumab plus Dasatinib to Cotarget the Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 Receptor and Src Family Kinase YES in Rhabdomyosarcoma

PURPOSE

Antibodies against insulin-like growth factor (IGF) type 1 receptor have shown meaningful but transient tumor responses in patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). The SRC family member YES has been shown to mediate IGF type 1 receptor (IGF-1R) antibody acquired resistance, and cotargeting IGF-1R and YES resulted in sustained responses in murine RMS models. We conducted a phase I trial of the anti-IGF-1R antibody ganitumab combined with dasatinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting YES, in patients with RMS (NCT03041701).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with relapsed/refractory alveolar or embryonal RMS and measurable disease were eligible. All patients received ganitumab 18 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Dasatinib dose was 60 mg/m2/dose (max 100 mg) oral once daily [dose level (DL)1] or 60 mg/m2/dose (max 70 mg) twice daily (DL2). A 3+3 dose escalation design was used, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined on the basis of cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities (DLT).

RESULTS

Thirteen eligible patients, median age 18 years (range 8-29) enrolled. Median number of prior systemic therapies was 3; all had received prior radiation. Of 11 toxicity-evaluable patients, 1/6 had a DLT at DL1 (diarrhea) and 2/5 had a DLT at DL2 (pneumonitis, hematuria) confirming DL1 as MTD. Of nine response-evaluable patients, one had a confirmed partial response for four cycles, and one had stable disease for six cycles. Genomic studies from cell-free DNA correlated with disease response.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of dasatinib 60 mg/m2/dose daily and ganitumab 18 mg/kg every 2 weeks was safe and tolerable. This combination had a disease control rate of 22% at 5 months.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

BACKGROUND

Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE).

METHODS

The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar.

CONCLUSIONS

By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Mobilizing the clinical trial ecosystem to drive adoption of master protocols

Master protocol studies typically use an overarching protocol to answer several questions by guiding a variety of sub-studies. These sub-studies can incorporate multiple diseases, therapies, or both. Although this innovative approach offers many benefits, including the ability to deliver clinical research that is more patient-centric and efficient, several common barriers curtail widespread adoption. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) convened industry representatives, regulatory agencies, patient groups, and academic institutions to identify emerging best practices and develop resources designed to help sponsors and other stakeholders overcome these challenges. We first identify some broad changes needed in the clinical trials ecosystem to facilitate mainstream adoption of master protocol studies, and we subsequently summarize CTTI's resources designed to support this effort.

The Role of Master Protocols in Pediatric Drug Development

Master protocols are innovative clinical trial designs that enable new approaches to analytics and operations, creating value for patients and drug developers. To date, the use of master protocols in pediatric drug development has been limited, focused primarily on pediatric oncology with limited experience in rare and ultra-rare pediatric diseases. This article explores the application of master protocols to pediatric programs required by FDA and EMA based on adult developmental programs. These required programs involve multiple assets developed in limited pediatric populations for registrational purposes. However, these required programs include the possibility for extrapolation of efficacy and safety from the adult population. The use of master protocols is a potential solution to the challenge of conducting clinical trials in small pediatric populations provided that such use would improve enrollment or reduce the required sample size. Toward that end, Janssen and Lilly have been working on a collaborative cross-company pediatric platform trial in pediatric Crohn's disease using an innovative Bayesian analysis. We describe how two competing companies can work together to design and execute the proposed platform, focusing on selected aspects-the usefulness of a single infrastructure, the regulatory submission process, the choice of control group, and the use of pediatric extrapolation. Master protocols offer the potential for great benefit in pediatrics by streamlining clinical development, with the goal of reducing the delay in pediatric marketing approvals when compared to adults so that children have timelier access to safe and effective medications.

A Review of Interventional Trials in Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Opportunities

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, the dramatic rise of obesity among youth in the US has been accompanied by a rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in this population. This alarming trend underscores the importance of conducting trials to evaluate new therapies in children with T2D.

METHODS

A targeted review of peer-reviewed literature and trials registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov was conducted in January 2021 to identify pharmaceutical interventional studies in youth with T2D. Information regarding enrollment data, study design elements, subjects' baseline characteristics, and key treatment outcomes was documented.

RESULTS

Among the 16 clinical studies included in this review, only five appeared to meet projected enrollment targets in < 4 years. Although three other studies met recruitment targets, two took approximately 5 years to complete and the third took nearly 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite legislation requiring evaluation of pharmaceutical treatments in pediatric populations, surprisingly few interventional studies have been conducted in children with T2D. This review highlights that recruitment challenges may be impeding the conduct and completion of interventional studies. Consequently, few pharmaceutical treatments have been proven to be effective and approved for children with T2D. Metformin and liraglutide remain the only non-insulin treatments formally approved in the US for use in this population. More clinical research is needed to support regulatory decision-making as well as treatment decisions for children with T2D in clinical settings. Sponsors and investigators will need to implement strategies for improving trial enrollment as well as work with regulatory agencies to develop novel study designs that may require fewer patients.

Precision oncology: a clinical and patient perspective

Molecular characterization of tumors has shifted cancer treatment strategies away from nonspecific cytotoxic treatment of histology-specific tumors toward targeting of actionable mutations that can be found across multiple cancer types. The development of high-throughput technologies such as next-generation sequencing, combined with decision support applications and availability of patient databases, has provided tools that optimize disease management. Precision oncology has proven success in improving outcomes and quality of life, as well as identifying and overcoming mechanisms of drug resistance and relapse. Addressing challenges that impede its use will improve matching of therapies to patients. Here we review the current status of precision oncology medicine, emphasizing its impact on patients - what they understand about precision oncology medicine and their hopes for the future.

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

Developing New Agents for Treatment of Childhood Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities for Preclinical Testing

Developing new therapeutics for the treatment of childhood cancer has challenges not usually associated with adult malignancies. Firstly, childhood cancer is rare, with approximately 12,500 new diagnoses annually in the U.S. in children 18 years or younger. With current multimodality treatments, the 5-year event-free survival exceeds 80%, and 70% of patients achieve long-term “cure”, hence the overall number of patients eligible for experimental drugs is small. Childhood cancer comprises many disease entities, the most frequent being acute lymphoblastic leukemias (25% of cancers) and brain tumors (21%), and each of these comprises multiple molecular subtypes. Hence, the numbers of diagnoses even for the more frequently occurring cancers of childhood are small, and undertaking clinical trials remains a significant challenge. Consequently, development of preclinical models that accurately represent each molecular entity can be valuable in identifying those agents or combinations that warrant clinical evaluation. Further, new regulations under the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity for Children Act (RACE For Children Act) will change the way in which drugs are developed. Here, we will consider some of the limitations of preclinical models and consider approaches that may improve their ability to translate therapy to clinical trial more accurately.

Parental Access to Children's Raw Genomic Data in Canada: Legal Rights and Professional Responsibility

Children with rare and common diseases now undergo whole genome sequencing (WGS) in clinical and research contexts. Parents sometimes request access to their child's raw genomic data, to pursue their own analyses or for onward sharing with health professionals and researchers. These requests raise legal, ethical, and practical issues for professionals and parents alike. The advent of widespread WGS in pediatrics occurs in a context where privacy and data protection law remains focused on giving individuals control-oriented rights with respect to their personal information. Acting in their child's stead and in their best interests, parents are generally the ones who will be exercising these informational rights on behalf of the child. In this paper, we map the contours of parental authority to access their child's raw genomic data. We consider three use cases: hospital-based researchers, healthcare professionals acting in a clinical-diagnostic capacity, and "pure" academic researchers at a public institution. Our research seeks to answer two principal questions: Do parents have a right of access to their child's raw WGS data? If so, what are the limits of this right? Primarily focused on the laws of Ontario, Canada's most populous province, with a secondary focus on Canada's three other most populous provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta) and the European Union, our principal findings include (1) parents have a general right of access to information about their children, but that the access right is more capacious in the clinical context than in the research context; (2) the right of access extends to personal data in raw form; (3) a consideration of the best interests of the child may materially limit the legal rights of parents to access data about their child; (4) the ability to exercise rights of access are transferred from parents to children when they gain decision-making capacity in both the clinical and research contexts, but with more nuance in the former. With these findings in mind, we argue that professional guidelines, which are concerned with obligations to interpret and return results, may assist in furthering a child's best interests in the context of legal access rights. We conclude by crafting recommendations for healthcare professionals in the clinical and research contexts when faced with a parental request for a child's raw genomic data.

The Revolution in Pediatric Drug Development and Drug Use: Therapeutic Orphans No More

This lecture was given by Dr. Burckart in association with presentation of the 2014 Sumner J. Yaffe Lifetime Achievement Award in Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, which is selected by the Pediatric Pharmacy Association. Multiple factors make conducting drug studies in the pediatric population difficult, resulting in a historic lack of information surrounding safe and efficacious drug dosing in children. The paradigm in pediatric drug development has shifted from normal science being that children are therapeutic orphans in the drug development system, to a model drift caused by pediatric legislation, to a model crisis caused by failed pediatric drug development trials, to finally a model revolution that includes pediatric patients routinely in drug development. Major regulatory actions and the accumulation of scientific evidence has created an environment where clinicians can expect properly labeled drug usage information for the pediatric population.

A Bayesian approach in design and analysis of pediatric cancer clinical trials

It is well recognized that cancer drug development for children and adolescents has many challenges, from biological and societal to economic. Pediatric cancer consists of a diverse group of rare diseases, and the relatively small population of children with multiple, disparate tumor types across various age groups presents a significant challenge for drug development programs as compared to oncology drug development programs for adults. Due to the different types of cancers, limited opportunities exist for extrapolation of efficacy from adult cancer indications to children. Thus, innovative study designs including Bayesian statistical approaches should be considered. A Bayesian approach can be a flexible tool to formally leverage prior knowledge of adult or external controls in pediatric cancer trials. In this article, we provide in a case example of how Bayesian approaches can be used to design, monitor, and analyze pediatric trials. Particularly, Bayesian sequential monitoring can be useful to monitor pediatric trial results as data accumulate. In addition, designing a pediatric trial with both skeptical and enthusiastic priors with Bayesian sequential monitoring can be an efficient mechanism for early trial cessation for both efficacy and futility. The interpretation of efficacy using a Bayesian approach is based on posterior probability and is intuitive and interpretable for patients, parents and prescribers given limited data.

A Physiology-Based Pharmacokinetic Framework to Support Drug Development and Dose Precision During Therapeutic Hypothermia in Neonates

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) is standard treatment for neonates (≥36 weeks) with perinatal asphyxia (PA) and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. TH reduces mortality and neurodevelopmental disability due to reduced metabolic rate and decreased neuronal apoptosis. Since both hypothermia and PA influence physiology, they are expected to alter pharmacokinetics (PK). Tools for personalized dosing in this setting are lacking. A neonatal hypothermia physiology-based PK (PBPK) framework would enable precision dosing in the clinic. In this literature review, the stepwise approach, benefits and challenges to develop such a PBPK framework are covered. It hereby contributes to explore the impact of non-maturational PK covariates. First, the current evidence as well as knowledge gaps on the impact of PA and TH on drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion in neonates is summarized. While reduced renal drug elimination is well-documented in neonates with PA undergoing hypothermia, knowledge of the impact on drug metabolism is limited. Second, a multidisciplinary approach to develop a neonatal hypothermia PBPK framework is presented. Insights on the effect of hypothermia on hepatic drug elimination can partly be generated from in vitro (human/animal) profiling of hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters. Also, endogenous biomarkers may be evaluated as surrogate for metabolic activity. To distinguish the impact of PA versus hypothermia on drug metabolism, in vivo neonatal animal data are needed. The conventional pig is a well-established model for PA and the neonatal Göttingen minipig should be further explored for PA under hypothermia conditions, as it is the most commonly used pig strain in nonclinical drug development. Finally, a strategy is proposed for establishing and fine-tuning compound-specific PBPK models for this application. Besides improvement of clinical exposure predictions of drugs used during hypothermia, the developed PBPK models can be applied in drug development. Add-on pharmacotherapies to further improve outcome in neonates undergoing hypothermia are under investigation, all in need for dosing guidance. Furthermore, the hypothermia PBPK framework can be used to develop temperature-driven PBPK models for other populations or indications. The applicability of the proposed workflow and the challenges in the development of the PBPK framework are illustrated for midazolam as model drug.

New approaches to therapeutic drug development for childhood cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We provide an overview of the current landscape of drug development relevant to childhood cancers. We present recent and ongoing efforts to identify therapeutic targets in pediatric cancers. We describe efforts to improve the approach to clinical trials and highlight the role regulatory changes and multistakeholder platforms play in advancing pediatric cancer drug development.

RECENT FINDINGS

Expanding knowledge of the genetic landscape of pediatric malignancies through clinical genomics studies has yielded an increasing number of potential targets for intervention. In parallel, new therapies for children with cancer have shifted from cytotoxic agents to targeted therapy, with examples of striking activity in patients with tumors driven by oncogenic kinase fusions. Innovative trial designs and recent governmental policies provide opportunities for accelerating development of targeted therapies in pediatric oncology.

SUMMARY

Novel treatment strategies in pediatric oncology increasingly utilize molecularly targeted agents either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional cytotoxic agents. The interplay between new target identification, efforts to improve clinical trial design and new government regulations relevant to pediatric cancer drug development has the potential to advance novel agents into frontline care of children with cancer.

Too Many Avoidable Suicides Occur Worldwide in Young Patients

United States (US) and European Union (EU) laws attempt to counterbalance the presumed discrimination of children in drug treatment and drug development. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-rewarded pediatric studies with antidepressants triggered in 2004 an FDA black-box warning of suicidality in young patients. Fewer antidepressants were prescribed, and the number of completed suicides of young persons increased. The dilemma between this warning and the need to adequately treat young depressed patients remains unsolved. We analyzed the history of drug development, the evolving view of diseases in young patients, US/EU pediatric laws, and pediatric studies triggered by FDA/European Medicines Agency (EMA) in depression and other diseases on the background of developmental pharmacology; financial, institutional, and other interests; and the literature. The FDA/EMA define children administratively, not physiologically, as <17 (FDA)/<18 years old (EMA). But young persons mature physiologically well before their 17th/18th birthday. Depression occurs in young persons, has special characteristics, but is not fundamentally different from adult depression. Young persons are not another species. Regulatory requirements for "pediatric" studies focus on "pediatric" labels. Many "pediatric" studies, including those in depression, lacked and lack medical sense and harm patients by placebo treatment although effective drugs exist. The FDA has partially abandoned separate "pediatric" efficacy studies, but not in psychiatry. Clinicians, parents, institutional review boards, and ethics committees should become aware of questionable "pediatric" studies, should re-evaluate ongoing ones, consider to suspend them, and to reject new ones. The concept of separate "pediatric" drug approval needs to be abandoned.

Challenges and Opportunities for Childhood Cancer Drug Development

Cancer in children is rare with approximately 15,700 new cases diagnosed in the United States annually. Through use of multimodality therapy (surgery, radiation therapy, and aggressive chemotherapy), 70% of patients will be "cured" of their disease, and 5-year event-free survival exceeds 80%. However, for patients surviving their malignancy, therapy-related long-term adverse effects are severe, with an estimated 50% having chronic life-threatening toxicities related to therapy in their fourth or fifth decade of life. While overall intensive therapy with cytotoxic agents continues to reduce cancer-related mortality, new understanding of the molecular etiology of many childhood cancers offers an opportunity to redirect efforts to develop effective, less genotoxic therapeutic options, including agents that target oncogenic drivers directly, and the potential for use of agents that target the tumor microenvironment and immune-directed therapies. However, for many high-risk cancers, significant challenges remain.

Reporting of master protocols towards a standardized approach: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In September 2018 the FDA provided a draft guidance on master protocols reflecting an increased interest in these designs by industry. Master protocols refer to a single overarching protocol developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses and may be further categorized as basket, umbrella, and platform trials. However, inconsistencies in reporting persist in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to describe master protocol reporting with the goal of facilitating the further development and spread of these innovative trial designs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to April 25, 2019 for English articles on master protocols. This was supplemented by hand searches of trial registries and of the bibliographies of published reviews. We used the FDA's definitions of master protocols as references and compared them to self-reported master protocols.

RESULTS

We identified 278 master protocol publications, consisting of 228 protocols and 50 reviews. Sixty-six records provided unique definitions of master protocol types. We observed considerable heterogeneity in definitions of master protocols, and over half (54%) used oncology-specific language. The majority of self-classified master protocols (57%) were consistent with the FDA's definitions of master protocols.

CONCLUSION

The terms 'master protocol', 'basket trial', 'umbrella trial', and 'platform trial' are inconsistently described. Careful treatment of these terms and adherence to the definitions set forth by the FDA will facilitate better understanding of these trial designs and allow them to be used broadly and to their full potential in clinical research. We encourage trial methodologists to use these trial designations when applicable.

Timing of first-in-child trials of FDA-approved oncology drugs

AIM

The lag time between initial human studies of oncology agents and the first-in-child clinical trials of these agents has not been defined.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic analysis of time from first-in-human trials to first-in-child trials (age of eligibility <18 years) of agents first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for any oncology indication from 1997 to 2017. We used clinical trial registry data, published literature and oncology abstracts to identify relevant trials and start dates.

RESULTS

From 1997 to 2017, 126 drugs received initial FDA approval for an oncology indication. Of these, 117 were non-hormonal agents used in subsequent analyses. Fifteen of 117 drugs (12.8%) did not yet have a paediatric trial, and six of 117 drugs (5.1%) had an initial approval that included children. The median time between the first-in-human trial and first-in-child trial was 6.5 years (range 0-27.7 years). The median time from initial FDA approval to the first-in-child clinical trial was -0.66 years (range -43 to +19 years). These values were stable regardless of year of initial FDA approval, drug class and initial approved disease indication.

CONCLUSION

The median lag time from first-in-human to first-in-child trials of oncology agents that were ultimately approved by FDA was 6.5 years. These results provide a benchmark against which to evaluate recent initiatives designed to hasten drug development relevant to children with cancer.