1
|
Wilson JS, Main C, Thorp N, Taylor RE, Majothi S, Kearns PR, English M, Dandapani M, Phillips R, Wheatley K, Pizer B. The effectiveness and safety of proton beam radiation therapy in children and young adults with Central Nervous System (CNS) tumours: a systematic review. J Neurooncol 2024; 167:1-34. [PMID: 38294638 PMCID: PMC10978619 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04510-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Central nervous system (CNS) tumours account for around 25% of childhood neoplasms. With multi-modal therapy, 5-year survival is at around 75% in the UK. Conventional photon radiotherapy has made significant contributions to survival, but can be associated with long-term side effects. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) reduces the volume of irradiated tissue outside the tumour target volume which may potentially reduce toxicity. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of PBT and make recommendations for future research for this evolving treatment. METHODS A systematic review assessing the effects of PBT for treating CNS tumours in children/young adults was undertaken using methods recommended by Cochrane and reported using PRISMA guidelines. Any study design was included where clinical and toxicity outcomes were reported. Searches were to May 2021, with a narrative synthesis employed. RESULTS Thirty-one case series studies involving 1731 patients from 10 PBT centres were included. Eleven studies involved children with medulloblastoma / primitive neuroectodermal tumours (n = 712), five ependymoma (n = 398), four atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumour (n = 72), six craniopharyngioma (n = 272), three low-grade gliomas (n = 233), one germ cell tumours (n = 22) and one pineoblastoma (n = 22). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported with overall survival values ranging from 100 to 28% depending on the tumour type. Endocrine outcomes were the most frequently reported toxicity outcomes with quality of life the least reported. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights areas of uncertainty in this research area. A well-defined, well-funded research agenda is needed to best maximise the potential of PBT. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO-CRD42016036802.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayne S Wilson
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Caroline Main
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nicky Thorp
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
- The Christie Hospital Foundation Trust Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Saimma Majothi
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Pamela R Kearns
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Martin English
- Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Madhumita Dandapani
- Children's Brain Tumour Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals' NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Robert Phillips
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, York, UK
| | - Keith Wheatley
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Barry Pizer
- Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
- University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Otth M, Brack E, Kearns PR, Kozhaeva O, Ocokoljic M, Schoot RA, Vassal G, Balduzzi A, Beck Popovic M, Beishuizen A, Bergamaschi L, Biondi A, Bourdeaut F, Braicu E, Brok J, Brugières L, Burke A, Calaminus G, Casanova M, Choucair ML, Cleirec M, Corbaciouglu S, Correa Llano MG, De Rojas T, Domínguez Pinilla N, Elmaraghi C, Ferrari A, Fossa A, Gaspar N, Herold N, Karapiperi K, Karu M, Kjærsgaar M, Knörr F, Koenig C, Kranjcec I, Krawczyk M, Lehmberg K, Lehrnbecher T, Lunesink M, Massano D, Matijasic N, Merks H, Metzler M, Michalski A, Minkov M, Morland B, Niktoreh N, Oltenau E, Orbach D, Owens C, Papachristidou S, Pasqualini C, Pavlovic M, Perez Albert P, Poyer F, Radulovic I, Reinhardt D, Rebelo J, Roser E, Russo I, Scheinemann K, Schindera C, Schrappe M, Sehested A, Sehouli J, Spreafico F, Strauss SJ, Stutterheim J, Svojgr K, Tzotzola V, Van Ewijk R, Verschuur A, Vora A, Woessmann W, Zajac-Spychala O, Zwaan M. Essential medicines for childhood cancer in Europe: a pan-European, systematic analysis by SIOPE. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:1537-1546. [PMID: 36332647 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00623-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2022] [Revised: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shortages and unequal access to anticancer medicines for children and adolescents are a reality in Europe. The aim of the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) Essential Anticancer Medicines Project was to provide a list of anticancer medicines that are considered essential in the treatment of paediatric cancers to help ensure their continuous access to all children and adolescents with cancer across Europe. METHODS This pan-European project, done between Jan 20, 2020, and Feb 18, 2022, was designed to be a systematic collection and review of treatment protocols and strategies that are used to treat childhood cancer in Europe. We formed 16 working groups on the basis of paediatric cancer types, and which were based on the existing SIOPE Clinical Trial Groups. Workings groups consisted of representatives from the SIOPE Clinical Trial Groups, Young SIOPE members, and senior paediatric oncology experts. Each group collected existing treatment protocols that are used to treat the respective cancer types in Europe. Medicines from the standard group of each protocol were extracted. For medicines not on the WHO Essential Medicines List for children (EMLc) 2017, working groups did a literature search to determine whether the medicines should be defined as essential, promising, or neither essential nor promising. Each group provided an individual summary, and all medicines that were considered essential by at least one group were combined in a joint list. FINDINGS The working groups identified 73 treatment protocols used in Europe and defined 66 medicines as essential. For several newer medicines, such as kinase inhibitors or tisagenlecleucel, the supporting evidence was insufficient to consider them essential, so these medicines were defined as promising. 25 medicines were considered promising by at least one working group. 22 (33%) of the 66 essential and none of the promising medicines were included in the WHO EMLc 2017. The WHO EMLc 2021 included two new medicines (everolimus and vinorelbine) following applications we made as a result of this project. INTERPRETATION Medicines that were defined as essential within this project should be available for the treatment of childhood and adolescent cancer continuously and across Europe. This list can be used to support and guide stakeholders and policy makers in negotiations on a national and European level regarding shortages, accessibility, and affordability of these medicines. FUNDING None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Otth
- Division of Oncology-Hematology, Department of Pediatrics, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Department of Oncology, Haematology, Immunology, Stem Cell Transplantation and Somatic Gene Therapy, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Eva Brack
- Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University Children's Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Pamela R Kearns
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Olga Kozhaeva
- Policy Department, European Society for Paediatric Oncology, SIOP Europe, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Marko Ocokoljic
- Policy Department, European Society for Paediatric Oncology, SIOP Europe, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Reineke A Schoot
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gilles Vassal
- Department of Children and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center, Villejuif, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kiernan M, Baiocchi MT. Casting New Light on Statistical Power: An Illuminating Analogy and Strategies to Avoid Underpowered Trials. Am J Epidemiol 2022; 191:1500-1507. [PMID: 35292796 PMCID: PMC9989344 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwac019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Revised: 01/10/2022] [Accepted: 01/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Current standards for methodological rigor and trial reporting underscore the critical issue of statistical power. Still, the chance of detecting most effects reported in randomized controlled trials in medicine and other disciplines is currently lower than winning a toss of a fair coin. Here we propose that investigators who retain a practical understanding of how statistical power works can proactively avoid the potentially devastating consequences of underpowered trials. We first offer a vivid, carefully constructed analogy that illuminates the underlying relationships among 3 of the 5 essential parameters-namely, statistical power, effect size, and sample size-while holding the remaining 2 parameters constant (type of statistical test and significance level). Second, we extend the analogy to a set of critical scenarios in which investigators commonly miss detecting intervention effects due to insufficient statistical power. Third, we highlight effective pragmatic strategies for the design and conduct of sufficiently powered trials, without increasing sample size.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michaela Kiernan
- Correspondence to Dr. Michaela Kiernan, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, 3180 Porter Drive, MC 5702, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 (e-mail: )
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gross AM. Using real world data to support regulatory approval of drugs in rare diseases: A review of opportunities, limitations & a case example. Curr Probl Cancer 2021; 45:100769. [PMID: 34247834 DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2021.100769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Conducting clinical research in patients with rare diseases presents a variety of challenges. At the same time, rare diseases represent a large area of unmet medical need with a significant burden of morbidity throughout the world. One of the most common issues with designing clinical trials for rare disease populations is that the gold-standard randomized controlled trial design is often not feasible in these small and usually geographically dispersed populations. Real world data therefore has particular relevance in the rare disease setting, where it may be used as a comparator for single-arm treatment trials and in support of submissions to regulatory agencies for drugs to treat these conditions. In this report, we review the potential utility and limitations of external controls for regulatory approval of drugs in rare diseases and present a recent case example of the successful utilization of external controls in the Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) population.
Collapse
|
5
|
Hatswell A, Freemantle N, Baio G, Lesaffre E, van Rosmalen J. Summarising salient information on historical controls: A structured assessment of validity and comparability across studies. Clin Trials 2020; 17:607-616. [PMID: 32957804 PMCID: PMC7649932 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520944855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials remain the standard way to evaluate drugs for efficacy, historical data are used extensively across the development cycle. This ranges from supplementing contemporary data to increase the power of trials to cross-trial comparisons in estimating comparative efficacy. In many cases, these approaches are performed without in-depth review of the context of data, which may lead to bias and incorrect conclusions. METHODS We discuss the original 'Pocock' criteria for the use of historical data and how the use of historical data has evolved over time. Based on these factors and personal experience, we created a series of questions that may be asked of historical data, prior to their use. Based on the answers to these questions, various statistical approaches are recommended. The strategy is illustrated with a case study in colorectal cancer. RESULTS A number of areas need to be considered with historical data, which we split into three categories: outcome measurement, study/patient characteristics (including setting and inclusion/exclusion criteria), and disease process/intervention effects. Each of these areas may introduce issues if not appropriately handled, while some may preclude the use of historical data entirely. We present a tool (in the form of a table) for highlighting any such issues. Application of the tool to a colorectal cancer data set demonstrates under what conditions historical data could be used and what the limitations of such an analysis would be. CONCLUSION Historical data can be a powerful tool to augment or compare with contemporary trial data, though caution is required. We present some of the issues that may be considered when involving historical data and what (if any) statistical approaches may account for differences between studies. We recommend that, where historical data are to be used in analyses, potential differences between studies are addressed explicitly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Hatswell
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.,Delta Hat Limited, Nottingham, UK
| | - Nick Freemantle
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gianluca Baio
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hatswell AJ, Freemantle N, Baio G. The Effects of Model Misspecification in Unanchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison: Results of a Simulation Study. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 23:751-759. [PMID: 32540233 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2019] [Revised: 01/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/03/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) by matching on first moments or higher moments in a cross-study comparisons under a variety of conditions. A secondary objective was to gauge the performance of the method relative to propensity score weighting (PSW). METHODS A simulation study was designed based on an oncology example, where MAIC was used to account for differences between a contemporary trial in which patients had more favorable characteristics and a historical control. A variety of scenarios were then tested varying the setup of the simulation study, including violating the implicit or explicit assumptions of MAIC. RESULTS Under ideal conditions and under a variety of scenarios, MAIC performed well (shown by a low mean absolute error [MAE]) and was unbiased (shown by a mean error [ME] of about zero). The performance of the method deteriorated where the matched characteristics had low explanatory power or there was poor overlap between studies. Only when important characteristics are not included in the matching did the method become biased (nonzero ME). Where the method showed poor performance, this was exaggerated if matching was also performed on the variance (ie, higher moments). Relative to PSW, MAIC provided similar results in most circumstances, although it exhibited slightly higher MAE and a higher chance of exaggerating bias. CONCLUSIONS MAIC appears well suited to adjust for cross-trial comparisons provided the assumptions underpinning the model are met, with relatively little efficiency loss compared with PSW.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony James Hatswell
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England, UK; Delta Hat, Nottingham, England, UK.
| | - Nick Freemantle
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gianluca Baio
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Magnetic Steering of Capsule Endoscopy Improves Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Completion Rate. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64:1908-1915. [PMID: 30725289 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-5479-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2018] [Accepted: 01/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Capsule endoscopy is currently available as a noninvasive and effective diagnostic modality to identify small bowel abnormalities, with a completion rate to the cecum between 75.1 and 95.6%. A novel magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) system could facilitate passage of the capsule through the pylorus, thereby reducing the gastric transit time (GTT). OBJECTIVE We performed this study to determine whether magnetic steering could improve the capsule endoscopy completion rate (CECR) compared to standard protocol. METHODS Patients referred for MCE in our center from June 2017 to November 2017 were prospectively enrolled. Magnetic steering of the capsule through the pylorus was performed after standard gastric examination. CECR, GTT, pyloric transit time (PTT), and rapid gastric transit (GTT ≤ 30 min) rate were compared with a historical control group enrolled from January 2017 to May 2017. RESULTS CECR was significantly higher in the intervention group (n = 107) than control group (n = 120) (100% vs. 94.2%, P = 0.02), with a significantly shorter GTT (22.2 vs. 84.5 min, P < 0.001) and PTT (4.4 vs. 56.7 min, P < 0.001). Rapid gastric transit rate in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group (58.9% vs. 15.0%, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in the diagnostic yields between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Magnetic steering of capsule endoscopy improves small bowel CECR by reducing GTT, adding further support to MCE as a practical tool for noninvasive examination of both the stomach and small bowel. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03482661.
Collapse
|
8
|
Hatswell AJ, Sullivan WG. Creating historical controls using data from a previous line of treatment – Two non-standard approaches. Stat Methods Med Res 2019; 29:1563-1572. [DOI: 10.1177/0962280219826609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Where medical interventions are licensed based on only uncontrolled study data (for example a single-arm trial), a common approach for estimating the incremental benefit is to compare the treatment to a ‘historical control’; data collected from patients who did not receive the intervention. We illustrate with motivating examples two methods for the creation of historical controls where disease progression and overall survival are typically the key clinically meaningful endpoints. The first method utilises information routinely collected in a clinical trial programme: patients’ time to disease progression on their previous line of treatment against which outcomes can be compared. The second uses published clinical outcomes for the prior line of treatment which can be extrapolated to estimate outcomes at the next line. As examples we use two pharmaceuticals licensed on the basis of uncontrolled clinical studies – idelalisib for double-refractory follicular lymphoma and ofatumumab for double-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Although subject to limitations that should be considered on a case-by-case basis, the methods may be appropriate when trying to quantify the clinical benefit of treatment based on limited and uncontrolled trial data. As a result, the methods can be used to inform health technology adoption decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony J Hatswell
- BresMed Health Solutions, Steel City House, West Street, Sheffield, UK
- Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - William G Sullivan
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
- Delta Hat Limited, Long Eaton, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bautista F, Fioravantti V, de Rojas T, Carceller F, Madero L, Lassaletta A, Moreno L. Medulloblastoma in children and adolescents: a systematic review of contemporary phase I and II clinical trials and biology update. Cancer Med 2017; 6:2606-2624. [PMID: 28980418 PMCID: PMC5673921 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2017] [Revised: 07/31/2017] [Accepted: 08/01/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Survival rates for patients with medulloblastoma have improved in the last decades but for those who relapse outcome is dismal and new approaches are needed. Emerging drugs have been tested in the last two decades within the context of phase I/II trials. In parallel, advances in genetic profiling have permitted to identify key molecular alterations for which new strategies are being developed. We performed a systematic review focused on the design and outcome of early-phase trials evaluating new agents in patients with relapsed medulloblastoma. PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, and references from selected studies were screened to identify phase I/II studies with reported results between 2000 and 2015 including patients with medulloblastoma aged <18 years. A total of 718 studies were reviewed and 78 satisfied eligibility criteria. Of those, 69% were phase I; 31% phase II. Half evaluated conventional chemotherapeutics and 35% targeted agents. Overall, 662 patients with medulloblastoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumors were included. The study designs and the response assessments were heterogeneous, limiting the comparisons among trials and the correct identification of active drugs. Median (range) objective response rate (ORR) for patients with medulloblastoma in phase I/II studies was 0% (0-100) and 6.5% (0-50), respectively. Temozolomide containing regimens had a median ORR of 16.5% (0-100). Smoothened inhibitors trials had a median ORR of 8% (3-8). Novel drugs have shown limited activity against relapsed medulloblastoma. Temozolomide might serve as backbone for new combinations. Novel and more homogenous trial designs might facilitate the development of new drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francisco Bautista
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
| | - Victoria Fioravantti
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
| | - Teresa de Rojas
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
| | - Fernando Carceller
- Pediatric and Adolescent Drug Development, Children and Young People's UnitThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
- Division of Clinical Studies and Cancer TherapeuticsThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK
| | - Luis Madero
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
| | - Alvaro Lassaletta
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
| | - Lucas Moreno
- CNIO‐HNJ Clinical Research UnitPediatric Oncology, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant DepartmentHospital Infantil Universitario Niño JesúsAvenida Menéndez Pelayo, 6528009MadridSpain
- Instituto de Investigación La PrincesaMadridSpain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Moreno L, Pearson ADJ, Paoletti X, Jimenez I, Geoerger B, Kearns PR, Zwaan CM, Doz F, Baruchel A, Vormoor J, Casanova M, Pfister SM, Morland B, Vassal G. Early phase clinical trials of anticancer agents in children and adolescents - an ITCC perspective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14:497-507. [PMID: 28508875 DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.59] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas Moreno
- Paediatric Phase I-II Clinical Trials Unit, Paediatric Haematology &Oncology, Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, Spain
| | - Andrew D J Pearson
- Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK; and at the Division of Clinical Studies and Cancer Therapeutics, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Xavier Paoletti
- Biostatistics and Epidemiology, INSERM U1018, Gustave Roussy, Paris, France
| | - Irene Jimenez
- Department of Paediatric, Adolescents and Young Adults Oncology, Institut Curie; and at the University Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Birgit Geoerger
- Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Oncology, CNRS UMR 8203 Vectorology and Anticancer Treatments, Gustave Roussy, University Paris-Sud, Villejuif, France
| | - Pamela R Kearns
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - C Michel Zwaan
- Department of Paediatric Oncology/Haematology, Erasmus MC/Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Francois Doz
- Department of Paediatric, Adolescents and Young Adults Oncology, Institut Curie; and at the University Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Andre Baruchel
- Department of Paediatric Haematology, Hôpital Robert Debré, AP-HP; and at the University Paris Diderot, Paris, France
| | - Josef Vormoor
- Wolfson Childhood Cancer Research Centre, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University; and at the Great North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Michela Casanova
- Paediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefan M Pfister
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); German Cancer Consortium (DKTK); and at the Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Bruce Morland
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gilles Vassal
- Department of Clinical Research, Gustave Roussy, Paris-Sud University, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Moreno L, Caron H, Geoerger B, Eggert A, Schleiermacher G, Brock P, Valteau-Couanet D, Chesler L, Schulte JH, De Preter K, Molenaar J, Schramm A, Eilers M, Van Maerken T, Johnsen JI, Garrett M, George SL, Tweddle DA, Kogner P, Berthold F, Koster J, Barone G, Tucker ER, Marshall L, Herold R, Sterba J, Norga K, Vassal G, Pearson AD. Accelerating drug development for neuroblastoma - New Drug Development Strategy: an Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer, European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents and International Society of Paediatric Oncology Europe Neuroblastoma project. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2017; 12:801-811. [PMID: 28604107 DOI: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1340269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Neuroblastoma, the commonest paediatric extra-cranial tumour, remains a leading cause of death from cancer in children. There is an urgent need to develop new drugs to improve cure rates and reduce long-term toxicity and to incorporate molecularly targeted therapies into treatment. Many potential drugs are becoming available, but have to be prioritised for clinical trials due to the relatively small numbers of patients. Areas covered: The current drug development model has been slow, associated with significant attrition, and few new drugs have been developed for neuroblastoma. The Neuroblastoma New Drug Development Strategy (NDDS) has: 1) established a group with expertise in drug development; 2) prioritised targets and drugs according to tumour biology (target expression, dependency, pre-clinical data; potential combinations; biomarkers), identifying as priority targets ALK, MEK, CDK4/6, MDM2, MYCN (druggable by BET bromodomain, aurora kinase, mTORC1/2) BIRC5 and checkpoint kinase 1; 3) promoted clinical trials with target-prioritised drugs. Drugs showing activity can be rapidly transitioned via parallel randomised trials into front-line studies. Expert opinion: The Neuroblastoma NDDS is based on the premise that optimal drug development is reliant on knowledge of tumour biology and prioritisation. This approach will accelerate neuroblastoma drug development and other poor prognosis childhood malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas Moreno
- a Paediatric Phase I-II Clinical Trials Unit, Paediatric Haematology & Oncology , Hospital Niño Jesus , Madrid , Spain
- b Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Princesa , Madrid , Spain
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
| | - Hubert Caron
- d Emma Children's Hospital , Amsterdam , Netherlands
- e Hoffman-La Roche , Basel , Switzerland
| | - Birgit Geoerger
- f Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Oncology , Institut Gustave Roussy , Villejuif , France
| | - Angelika Eggert
- g Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology , Charite University Hospital , Berlin , Germany
| | - Gudrun Schleiermacher
- h Department of Paediatric, Adolescents and Young Adults Oncology and INSERM U830 , Institut Curie , Paris , France
| | - Penelope Brock
- i Department Paediatric Oncology , Great Ormond Street Hospital , London , UK
| | | | - Louis Chesler
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| | - Johannes H Schulte
- g Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology , Charite University Hospital , Berlin , Germany
| | | | - Jan Molenaar
- l Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , Netherlands
| | - Alexander Schramm
- m Department of Pediatric Oncology , University of Essen , Essen , Germany
| | - Martin Eilers
- n Theodor Boveri Institute and Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Biocenter , University of Wurzburg , Wurzburg , Germany
| | - Tom Van Maerken
- k Centre for Medical Genetic , Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium
| | - John Inge Johnsen
- o Department of Women's and Children's Health , Karolinska Institute , Stockholm , Sweden
| | | | - Sally L George
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| | - Deborah A Tweddle
- q Wolfson Childhood Cancer Research Centre , Newcastle University , Newcastle , UK
| | - Per Kogner
- o Department of Women's and Children's Health , Karolinska Institute , Stockholm , Sweden
| | - Frank Berthold
- r Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Jan Koster
- l Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , Netherlands
| | - Giuseppe Barone
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| | - Elizabeth R Tucker
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| | - Lynley Marshall
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| | | | - Jaroslav Sterba
- t Masaryk University, University Hospital , Brno , Czech Republic
- u Department of Pediatric Oncology , International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne's University Hospital , Brno , Czech Republic
- v RECAMO, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Centre , Brno , Czech Republic
| | - Koen Norga
- w Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Unit , Antwerp University Hospital , Antwerp , Belgium
| | - Gilles Vassal
- x Department of Clinical Research, Gustave Roussy , Paris-Sud University , Paris , France
| | - Andrew Dj Pearson
- c Paediatric Drug Development, Children and Young People's Unit , Royal Marsden Hospital , London , UK
- j Division of Clinical Studies , Institute of Cancer Research , London , UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Golder WA. [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey]. Ophthalmologe 2017; 114:215-223. [PMID: 28236001 DOI: 10.1007/s00347-017-0471-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Systematic errors and related phenomena represent an intrinsic challenge to the quality of clinical research. As a consequence even otherwise methodologically demanding studies may produce results that systematically differ from the true values. Systematic errors relating to investigative medicine are divided into six groups according to their affiliation with the consecutive chronological sections of the study. Bias can occur in preliminary literature research in the field, specifying the study design and selecting the study sample, measuring exposure and outcome, analyzing the data, interpreting the analyses and publishing the results. The most important systematic errors that concern diagnostic and interventional studies are created by access to the data of previous tests, calculated study design, preselection of the participants, comparison with non-contemporaneous controls, antedating the time of diagnosis and overdiagnosis of slowly progressive forms of diseases examined. Checking the measured values often leads to a mosaic of several biases with one being more or less dominant. Even by exercising due care in the preparation and performance of the study, the majority of distortions cannot be eliminated but only diminished. It is essential to consider each detected bias as a potential full or partial argument in support of an observed correlation. The control of systematic errors and related phenomena is both a significant element of the discussion of the study report and a key element for assessment of its scientific value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W A Golder
- , 23 rue de l'Oriflamme, 84000, Avignon, Frankreich.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hatswell AJ, Freemantle N, Baio G. Economic Evaluations of Pharmaceuticals Granted a Marketing Authorisation Without the Results of Randomised Trials: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2017; 35:163-176. [PMID: 27778240 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0460-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pharmaceuticals are usually granted a marketing authorisation on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Occasionally the efficacy of a treatment is assessed without a randomised comparator group (either active or placebo). OBJECTIVE To identify and develop a taxonomic account of economic modelling approaches for pharmaceuticals licensed without RCT data. METHODS We searched PubMed, the websites of UK health technology assessment bodies and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Scientific Presentations Database for assessments of treatments granted a marketing authorisation by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency from January 1999 to May 2014 without RCT data (74 indications). The outcome of interest was the approach to modelling efficacy data. RESULTS Fifty-one unique models were identified in 29 peer-reviewed articles, 30 health technology appraisals, and 15 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research abstracts concerning 30 indications (44 indications had not been modelled). We noted the high rate of non-submission to health technology assessment agencies (28/98). The majority of models (43/51) were based on 'historical controls'-comparisons to previous meta-analysis or pooling of trials (5), individual trials (16), registries/case series (15), or expert opinion (7). Other approaches used the patient as their own control, performed threshold analysis, assumed time on treatment was added to overall survival, or performed cost-minimisation analysis. CONCLUSIONS There is considerable variation in the quality and approach of models constructed for drugs granted a marketing authorisation without a RCT. The most common approach is of a naive comparison to historical data (using other trials/registry data as a control group), which has considerable scope for bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony J Hatswell
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
- BresMed, 84 Queen Street, Sheffield, S1 2DW, UK.
| | - Nick Freemantle
- Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, UKGower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Gianluca Baio
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Systematic errors and related phenomena represent an intrinsic challenge to the quality of clinical research. As a consequence even otherwise methodologically demanding studies may produce results that systematically differ from the true values. Systematic errors relating to investigative medicine are divided into six groups according to their affiliation with the consecutive chronological sections of the study. Bias can occur in preliminary literature research in the field, specifying the study design and selecting the study sample, measuring exposure and outcome, analyzing the data, interpreting the analyses and publishing the results. The most important systematic errors that concern diagnostic and interventional studies are created by access to the data of previous tests, calculated study design, preselection of the participants, comparison with non-contemporaneous controls, antedating the time of diagnosis and overdiagnosis of slowly progressive forms of diseases examined. Checking the measured values often leads to a mosaic of several biases with one being more or less dominant. Even by exercising due care in the preparation and performance of the study, the majority of distortions cannot be eliminated but only diminished. It is essential to consider each detected bias as a potential full or partial argument in support of an observed correlation. The control of systematic errors and related phenomena is both a significant element of the discussion of the study report and a key element for assessment of its scientific value.
Collapse
|
15
|
Moreno L, Rubie H, Varo A, Le Deley MC, Amoroso L, Chevance A, Garaventa A, Gambart M, Bautista F, Valteau-Couanet D, Geoerger B, Vassal G, Paoletti X, Pearson ADJ. Outcome of children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: A meta-analysis of ITCC/SIOPEN European phase II clinical trials. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017; 64:25-31. [PMID: 27555472 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Revised: 06/14/2016] [Accepted: 07/05/2016] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few randomized trials have been conducted in children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma and data about outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) in these patients are scarce. PROCEDURE A meta-analysis of three phase II studies of children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma conducted in Europe (temozolomide, topotecan-vincristine-doxorubicin and topotecan-temozolomide) was performed. Individual patient data with extended follow-up were collected from the trial databases after publication to describe trial outcomes (response rate, clinical benefit ratio, duration of treatment, PFS, and overall survival [OS]). Characteristics of subjects with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma were compared. RESULTS Data from 71 children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma were collected. Response definitions were not homogeneous in the three trials. Patients were on study for a median of 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 1.9-6.2). Of those, 35.2% achieved a complete or partial response, 26.3% experienced a response after more than two cycles, and 23.9% received more than six cycles. Median PFS from study entry for all, refractory, and relapsed patients was 6.4 ± 1.0, 12.5 ± 6.8, and 5.7 ± 1.0 months, respectively (P = 0.006). Median OS from study entry for all, refractory, and relapsed patients was 16.1 ± 4.3, 27.9 ± 20.2, and 11.0 ± 1.6 months, respectively (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Baseline data for response rate, clinical benefit ratio, duration of treatment, PFS, and OS were provided. Two subpopulations (relapsed/refractory) were clearly distinct and should be included in the interpretation of all trials. These results should help informing the design of forthcoming studies in relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas Moreno
- HNJ-CNIO Clinical Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Niño Jesus, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Amalia Varo
- HNJ-CNIO Clinical Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Niño Jesus, Madrid, Spain
| | - Marie Cecile Le Deley
- Universite Paris-Saclay, Univ. Paris-Sud, CESP, INSERM, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | | | | | - Alberto Garaventa
- Department of Pediatric Hemato-Oncology, Istituto Gianina, Gaslini, Genova
| | | | - Francisco Bautista
- HNJ-CNIO Clinical Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Niño Jesus, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Birgit Geoerger
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Gilles Vassal
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hatswell AJ, Baio G, Berlin JA, Irs A, Freemantle N. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e011666. [PMID: 27363818 PMCID: PMC4932294 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The efficacy of pharmaceuticals is most often demonstrated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, in some cases, regulatory applications lack RCT evidence. OBJECTIVE To investigate the number and type of these approvals over the past 15 years by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS Drug approval data were downloaded from the EMA website and the 'Drugs@FDA' database for all decisions on pharmaceuticals published from 1 January 1999 to 8 May 2014. The details of eligible applications were extracted, including the therapeutic area, type of approval and review period. RESULTS Over the period of the study, 76 unique indications were granted without RCT results (44 by the EMA and 60 by the FDA), demonstrating that a substantial number of treatments reach the market without undergoing an RCT. The majority was for haematological malignancies (34), with the next most common areas being oncology (15) and metabolic conditions (15). Of the applications made to both agencies with a comparable data package, the FDA granted more approvals (43/44 vs 35/44) and took less time to review products (8.7 vs 15.5 months). Products reached the market first in the USA in 30 of 34 cases (mean 13.1 months) due to companies making FDA submission before EMA submissions and faster FDA review time. DISCUSSION Despite the frequency with which approvals are granted without RCT results, there is no systematic monitoring of such treatments to confirm their effectiveness or consistency regarding when this form of evidence is appropriate. We recommend a more open debate on the role of marketing authorisations granted without RCT results, and the development of guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable data package for regulators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony J Hatswell
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gianluca Baio
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Alar Irs
- Department of Pharmacology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Nick Freemantle
- Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|