Pediatric Phase I Trials in Oncology: An Analysis of Study Conduct Efficiency

Safety and outcome of children, adolescents and young adults participating in phase I/II clinical oncology trials: a 9-year center experience

Introduction

Enrolling children with cancer in early phase trials is crucial to access innovative treatments, contributing to advancing pediatric oncology research and providing tailored therapeutic options. Our objective is to analyze the impact of these trials on patient outcomes and safety, and to examine the evolution and feasibility of trials in pediatric cancer over the past decade.

Methods

All patients recruited in pediatric anticancer phase I/II clinical trials from January 2014 to December 2022 were included. Clinical records and trial protocols were analyzed.

Results

A total of 215 patients (median age 11.2 years, range 1-29.5) were included in 52 trials (258 inclusions). Patients with extracranial solid tumors (67%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (24%), and leukemia (9%) were included. The most common investigational drugs were small molecules (28.3%) and antibodies (20.5%). Serious adverse events were experienced by 41% of patients, 4.4% discontinued treatment because of toxicity and two had toxic deaths. Median event-free survival was 3.7 months (95%CI: 2.8-4.5), longer in phase II trials than in phase I (2 vs. 6.3 months; p ≤ 0.001). Median overall survival was 12 months (95%CI: 9-15), higher in target-specific vs. non-target-specific trials (14 vs. 6 months; p ≤ 0.001).

Discussion

A significant and increasing number of patients have been included in early clinical trials, suggesting that both oncologists and families consider it valuable to be referred to specialized Units to access new therapies. Moreover, our data suggests that participation in early clinical trials, although not without potential toxicities, might have a positive impact on individual outcomes.

Phase II Study of Samotolisib in Children and Young Adults With Tumors Harboring Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase/Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Pathway Alterations: Pediatric MATCH APEC1621D

PURPOSE

Patients age 1-21 years with relapsed or refractory solid and CNS tumors were assigned to phase II studies of molecularly targeted therapies on the National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group (NCI-COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial. Patients whose tumors harbored predefined genetic alterations in the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway and lacked mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activating alterations were treated with the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor samotolisib.

METHODS

Patients received samotolisib twice daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A rolling 6 limited dose escalation was performed as, to our knowledge, this was the first pediatric study of samotolisib. The primary end point was the objective response rate; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and the recommended phase II dose and toxicity of samotolisib in children.

RESULTS

A total of 3.4% (41/1,206) of centrally tested patients were matched to this arm. Seventeen patients were treated. Among treated patients, the most common diagnoses included osteosarcoma (n = 6) and high-grade glioma (n = 5) harboring alterations in phosphatase and tensin homolog (n = 6), PIK3CA (n = 5), and tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (n = 3). No objective responses or prolonged stable disease were observed. Three-month PFS was 12% (95% CI, 2 to 31). Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (mucositis and pneumonitis). Dose level 2 (115 mg/m2/dose twice daily) was determined to be the recommended phase II dose of samotolisib in children.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study was successful at identifying patients and evaluating the efficacy of molecularly targeted therapy for rare molecular subgroups of patients in a histology-agnostic fashion. Unfortunately, there was no activity of samotolisib against tumors with PI3K/mTOR pathway alterations. Prospective trials such as the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of molecularly targeted therapies given their increasing use in clinical practice.

Evolution of the Innovative Therapies for Children With Cancer Consortium Trial Portfolio for Drug Development for Children With Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium is to improve access to novel therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. The evolution of the ITCC clinical trial portfolio since 2003 was reviewed.

METHODS

All ITCC-labeled phase I/II trials opened between January 1, 2003 and February 3, 2018 were analyzed in two periods (2003-2010 and 2011-2018), and data were extracted from the ITCC database, regulatory agencies' registries, and publications.

RESULTS

Sixty-one trials (62% industry-sponsored) enrolled 3,198 patients. The number of trials in the second period increased by almost 300% (16 v 45). All biomarker-driven trials (n = 14) were conducted in the second period. The use of rolling six and model-based designs increased (1 of 9, 11% v 21 of 31, 68%), and that of 3 + 3 designs decreased (5 of 9, 55% v 5 of 31, 16%; P = .014). The proportion of studies evaluating chemotherapeutics only decreased (5 of 16, 31% v 4 of 45, 9%), the proportion of single-agent targeted therapies did not change (9 of 16, 56.2% v 24 of 45, 53.3%), the proportion of combination targeted therapies trials increased (2 of 16, 12%, v 17 of 45, 38%), the proportion of randomized phase II trials increased (1 of 7, 14% v 8 of 14, 57%). More trials were part of a pediatric investigation plan in the second period (4 of 16, 25% v 21 of 45, 46%). The median time for Ethics Committees' approvals was 1.7 times longer for academic compared with industry-sponsored trials.

CONCLUSION

This study reports a shift in the paradigm of early drug development for childhood cancers, with more biologically relevant targets evaluated in biomarker-driven trials or in combination with other therapies and with more model-based or randomized designs and a greater focus on fulfilling regulatory requirements. Improvement of trial setup and recruitment could increase the number of patients benefiting from novel agents.

Advancing drug development in pediatric oncology, a focus on cancer biology and targeted therapies: iMATRIX platform

With the development of novel treatment therapies as well as evolving and innovative approaches to conduct clinical trials, the landscape of pediatric oncology drug development has dramatically changed in recent years. Despite this change, approvals for new drugs and labeling updates to ensure availability of proper treatment for pediatric patients with cancer remain slow. The context of drug development in pediatric tumors has also changed with regulatory initiatives in the US and Europe, creating a great need for faster development of novel drugs. Today, conventional study designs have been replaced or complemented by novel clinical trial designs, such as master protocols and platform trials, to optimize cancer drug development and enable faster regulatory approval. The iMATRIX platform is a mechanism-of-action (MOA)-based phase 1/2 trial framework for concurrently studying multiple molecules across a range of relevant pediatric tumor types, taking into account the biology of each pediatric tumor type. Six studies have been conducted, ongoing, or planned on the iMATRIX platform - investigating atezolizumab, cobimetinib, entrectinib, idasanutlin, alectinib, and glofitamab. A brief overview of study designs and characteristics are shared in this article, along with learnings from them.

Comparison of design methods for a safety run-in phase of a phase II clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In pediatric oncology, a Phase II trial often utilizes a safety run-in phase followed by an efficacy phase that enrolls at the dose level selected based on the safety run-in. Different from a Phase I trial, a Phase II safety run-in often assesses a very small number of dose levels. In the context of a safety run-in that assesses two or three dose levels, this article aims to compare three design methods, including the algorithm-based designs 3 + 3 and Rolling 6, and the model-assisted designs such as the Bayesian optimal interval design.

METHODS

Extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare operating characteristics of the three design methods for a safety run-in with two or three dose levels, varying the starting dose level.

RESULTS

The performance of algorithm-based and model-assisted designs can be influenced by selection of the starting dose level, with trials starting at a lower dose level having a higher probability of selecting a low dose or considering all doses as toxic. The impact is larger for 3 + 3 and Rolling 6 but to a lesser extent for Bayesian optimal interval design. For a safety run-in with two dose levels, using 3 + 3 or Rolling 6 and starting at the higher dose often lead to similar performance to Bayesian optimal interval design. For safety run-in with three dose levels, starting at the middle dose with 3 + 3, Rolling 6 or Bayesian optimal interval design is a good compromise between improving correct dose selection and imposing a toxic dose to less patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being sensitive to the starting dose level, the 3 + 3, Rolling 6 and Bayesian optimal interval designs overall demonstrate reasonable performance, which can be further improved with wise selection of the starting dose level. The Rolling 6 design remains the recommended design method especially if pharmacokinetics is important or required with this design having the feature of treating six patients per dose level. When designing a safety run-in, selection of a design method or selection of a starting dose should consider both the performance of the design approaches with different choices of a starting dose level and the magnitude of safety concerns with the dose levels under investigation.

Views of IRB members regarding phase 1 pediatric oncology trials

There is significant debate over whether phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are ethical and approvable. We thus surveyed IRB members to answer four questions. First, do IRB members think the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks? Second, do they think these trials are ethically appropriate? Third, do they think these trials are approvable? Fourth, how do the views of IRB members on the first two questions compare to the views of the US public? Of the 80 respondents who answered the test questions correctly, 18.8% stated that the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials outweigh the risks, 32.5% stated that the potential medical benefits and risks are about equal, and 48.8% stated that the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits. Compared to the general public, IRB members were significantly more likely to think the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits (p = 0.01). Finally, 68.8% of IRB members indicated that average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable, and 56.3% indicated that these trials are appropriate in children. These findings suggest two-thirds of IRB members believe average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable. Yet, almost half regard the risks as outweighing the potential medical benefits and almost half think these trials are inappropriate. These findings raise important questions regarding why IRB members and the general public evaluate the same risk/benefit profile differently, and whether it is possible to reconcile the two perspectives.

First phase 1 clinical study of olaparib in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors

BACKGROUND

The survival of patients with high-risk, refractory, relapsed, or metastatic solid tumors remains dismal. A poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor could be effective for the treatment of pediatric solid tumors with defective homologous recombination.

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter phase 1 clinical trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors to recommend a dose for Phase 2 trials. Olaparib (62.5, 125, and 187.5 mg/m² twice daily) was administered orally every day (1 cycle = 28 days) using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. Patients aged 3-18 years with recurrent pediatric solid tumors were eligible. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were enrolled and received olaparib monotherapy, which was well tolerated. The recommended phase 2 dose for daily administration was 187.5 mg/m² twice daily. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional. The area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h and the peak plasma concentration for 187.5 mg/m² twice daily in children were comparable to previous data obtained in a 200-mg, twice-daily cohort and lower than those in the 300-mg twice-daily cohort in adults. Pharmacodynamic studies demonstrated substantial inhibition of PARP activity. Two partial responses were observed in patients with Wilms tumor and neuroblastoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This report is the first clinical trial to describe the use of a PARP inhibitor as monotherapy in children. Olaparib was well tolerated, with preliminary antitumor responses observed in DNA damage response-defective pediatric tumors.

LAY SUMMARY

This Phase 1 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of olaparib in patients with refractory childhood solid tumors. Olaparib was well tolerated, achieving objective response in 2/15 patients. The DNA damage response was attenuated in nearly one-half of advanced neuroblastoma patients, demonstrating the utility of the PARP inhibitor. The results support further investigation of olaparib as a new treatment for DNA damage-response or repair-defective pediatric cancers.

On the feasibility of pediatric dose-finding trials in small samples with information from a preceding trial in adults

We consider the case of pediatric dose-finding trials with extremely limited sample size. The operating characteristics of the standard design, the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM), are only well described for sample sizes of about 20 patients or more. In this simulation study, we assume the situation of a pediatric trial with only 10 patients and a preceding dose-finding trial in adults. Based on the adult data, we reduce the set of pediatric doses and formulate (partially) informative prior distributions for the pediatric trial. Our simulations show that such small pediatric dose-finding trials with robustified priors may provide sufficient operating characteristics.

Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public

OBJECTIVES

To assess the US public's views on whether the potential medical benefits of phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks.

STUDY DESIGN

Online survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which they have a 10-year-old child with advanced cancer. They were then offered the option of giving their child supportive care or trying one more potential treatment, in the research or clinical care setting, which has the same risks and potential medical benefits as the average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. We assessed what percentage of respondents thought the potential medical benefits justify the risks.

RESULTS

In total, 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey participated (response rate = 66.1%). Of those who passed all 3 test questions indicating understanding, 67.1% in the research scenario and 58.5% in the clinical care scenario regarded the potential medical benefits of an average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial as equal to or greater than the risks. In addition, 53.4% of respondents in the research scenario thought it was appropriate for researchers to conduct a study in children with these risks and potential medical benefits, and 46.9% stated they would enroll their own child in such a trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of the US public regards the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials as justifying the risks. This finding suggests that these trials are ethically appropriate and approvable in patients who have no more effective treatment options. At the same time, a significant minority thought the potential medical benefits do not justify the risks, suggesting these trials should be approved only when they have significant social value. Moreover, approximately one-half of respondents regarded the trials as inappropriate and would not enroll their own child, underscoring the need for a rigorous informed consent process that accurately educates parents regarding the risks, potential medical benefits, and alternatives, so they can decide whether to enroll their child based on their own preferences and goals.

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.

Precision medicine in pediatric solid cancers

Despite huge advances in the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric cancers over the past several decades, it remains one of the leading causes of death during childhood in developed countries. The development of new targeted treatments for these diseases has been hampered by two major factors. First, the extremely heterogeneous nature of the types of tumors encountered in this age group, and their fundamental differences from common adult carcinomas, has made it hard to truly get a handle on the complexities of the underlying biology driving tumor growth. Second, a reluctance of the pharmaceutical industry to develop products or trials for this population due to the relatively small size of the 'market', and a too-easy mechanism of obtaining waivers for pediatric development of adult oncology drugs based on disease type rather than mechanism of action, led to significant difficulties in getting access to new drugs. Thankfully, the field has now started to change, both scientifically and from a regulatory perspective, in order to address some of these challenges. In this review, we will examine some of the recent insights into molecular features which make pediatric tumors so unique and how these might represent therapeutic targets; highlight ongoing international initiatives for providing comprehensive, personalized genomic profiling of childhood tumors in a clinically-relevant timeframe, and look briefly at where the field of pediatric precision oncology may be heading in future.

Parents' Insights into Pediatric Oncology Phase I Clinical Trials: Experiences from Their Child's Participation

OBJECTIVES

Phase 1 clinical trials are essential in the development of novel therapies for childhood cancers. Children with cancer can participate in phase 1 clinical trials when no known curative therapy remains. Understanding the experiences of children and their families in these clinical trials can help ensure that participation supports the children's and parents' well-being. This article explores the specific aspects of pediatric oncology phase 1 trials that parents found particularly challenging.

DATA SOURCES

This qualitative, empirical phenomenology study considered 11 parents' experiences during the time their child with cancer participated in a phase 1 clinical trial. The primary study results were previously reported. This article reports parents' insights into the processes and procedures that occurred as part of participation in a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial.

CONCLUSION

Parents' experiences during the phase 1 clinical trials were primarily positive. However, data analysis revealed five aspects of these trials that were challenging for families: learning about clinical trials, being referred to another institution, research-only procedures, adhering to trial requirements, and oral medications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Although experiences during phase 1 clinical trials were positive overall, opportunities to enhance children's and parents' experiences warrant attention. Enhancing the education provided to families during recruitment and minimizing the logistical burdens associated with trial requirements through care coordination may alleviate challenges experienced by children and parents.

Opportunities and Challenges in Drug Development for Pediatric Cancers

The use of targeted small-molecule therapeutics and immunotherapeutics has been limited to date in pediatric oncology. Recently, the number of pediatric approvals has risen, and regulatory initiatives in the United States and Europe have aimed to increase the study of novel anticancer therapies in children. Challenges of drug development in children include the rarity of individual cancer diagnoses and the high prevalence of difficult-to-drug targets, including transcription factors and epigenetic regulators. Ongoing pediatric adaptation of biomarker-driven trial designs and further exploration of agents targeting non-kinase drivers constitute high-priority objectives for future pediatric oncology drug development. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing attention to drug development for children with cancer by regulators and pharmaceutical companies holds the promise of accelerating the availability of new therapies for children with cancer, potentially improving survival and decreasing the acute and chronic toxicities of therapy. However, unique approaches are necessary to study novel therapies in children that take into account low patient numbers, the pediatric cancer genomic landscape and tumor microenvironment, and the need for pediatric formulations. It is also critical to evaluate the potential for unique toxicities in growing hosts without affecting the pace of discovery for children with these life-threatening diseases.

End-of-Life Childhood Cancer Research: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Children with incurable cancer may participate in research studies at the end of life (EOL). These studies create knowledge that can improve the care of future patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe stakeholder perspectives regarding research studies involving children with cancer at the EOL by conduct of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We used the following data sources: Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest (inception until August 2020).

STUDY SELECTION

We selected 24 articles published in English that examined perceptions or experiences of research participation for children with cancer at the EOL from the perspectives of children, parents, and health professionals (HPs).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed study quality, and performed thematic analysis and synthesis.

RESULTS

Eight themes were identified: (1) seeking control; (2) faith, hope, and uncertainty; (3) being a good parent; (4) helping others; (5) barriers and facilitators; (6) information and understanding; (7) the role of HPs in consent and beyond; and (8) involvement of the child in decision-making.

LIMITATIONS

Study designs were heterogeneous. Only one study discussed palliative care research.

CONCLUSIONS

Some families participate in EOL research seeking to gain control and sustain hope, despite uncertainty. Other families choose against research, prioritizing quality of life. Parents may perceive research participation as the role of a "good parent" and hope to help others. HPs have positive views of EOL research but fear that parents lack understanding of the purpose of studies and the likelihood of benefit. We identified barriers to research participation and informed consent.

Whole genome, transcriptome and methylome profiling enhances actionable target discovery in high-risk pediatric cancer

The Zero Childhood Cancer Program is a precision medicine program to benefit children with poor-outcome, rare, relapsed or refractory cancer. Using tumor and germline whole genome sequencing (WGS) and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) across 252 tumors from high-risk pediatric patients with cancer, we identified 968 reportable molecular aberrations (39.9% in WGS and RNAseq, 35.1% in WGS only and 25.0% in RNAseq only). Of these patients, 93.7% had at least one germline or somatic aberration, 71.4% had therapeutic targets and 5.2% had a change in diagnosis. WGS identified pathogenic cancer-predisposing variants in 16.2% of patients. In 76 central nervous system tumors, methylome analysis confirmed diagnosis in 71.1% of patients and contributed to a change of diagnosis in two patients (2.6%). To date, 43 patients have received a recommended therapy, 38 of whom could be evaluated, with 31% showing objective evidence of clinical benefit. Comprehensive molecular profiling resolved the molecular basis of virtually all high-risk cancers, leading to clinical benefit in some patients.

Landscape of phase 1 clinical trials for minors with cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people.

METHODS

We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development.

Off-label prescribing of targeted anticancer therapy at a large pediatric cancer center

Background

Off‐label drug prescribing is common in pediatric clinical medicine, though the extent and impact of this practice in pediatric oncology has not yet been characterized.

Methods

We completed a retrospective single‐institution cohort study evaluating prevalence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of off‐label prescribing of 108 FDA‐approved targeted anticancer drugs in patients < 30 years old treated for cancer from 2007 to 2017. Dosing strategies were adjusted for body size and compared to FDA‐approved adult dosing regimen. A composite toxicity endpoint was defined as a patient having unplanned clinic visits, emergency department visits, or unplanned hospital admissions that were at least possibly related to the off‐label treatment.

Results

The overall prevalence of off‐label use of targeted therapies was 9.2% (n = 374 patients). The prevalence increased significantly over the study period (P < .0001). Patients treated off‐label were more likely to have neuro‐oncology diagnoses compared to patients not treated off‐label (46% vs 29%; P < .0001). Of the 108 potential agents, 38 (35%) were used by at least one patient. The median starting dose was below the FDA‐approved normalized dose for 44.4% of agents. Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response while receiving off‐label therapy, 38% experienced toxicity as defined, and 13% discontinued off‐label therapy due to toxicity.

Conclusions

In this real‐world evaluation of prescribing at a large pediatric cancer center, off‐label prescribing of FDA‐approved targeted therapies was common, increasing in prevalence, encompassed a broad sample of targeted agents, and was tolerable. Clinicians commonly start dosing below the equivalent FDA‐approved dose.

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

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

Pharmacokinetics and population pharmacokinetics in pediatric oncology

Pharmacokinetic research has become increasingly important in pediatric oncology as it can have direct clinical implications and is a crucial component in individualized medicine. Population pharmacokinetics has become a popular method especially in children, due to the potential for sparse sampling, flexible sampling times, computing of heterogeneous data, and identification of variability sources. However, population pharmacokinetic reports can be complex and difficult to interpret. The aim of this article is to provide a basic explanation of population pharmacokinetics, using clinical examples from the field of pediatric oncology, to facilitate the translation of pharmacokinetic research into the daily clinic.

Phase II, multi-center, open-label, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil in patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma (ESMMO): rationale and design of the ESMMO trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of patients with osteosarcoma remain unsatisfactory, with little improvement in a 5-year overall survival over the past three decades. There is a substantial need for further research and development to identify and develop more efficacious agents/regimens in order to improve clinical outcomes of patients for whom the prognosis is unfavorable. Recently, mycophenolate mofetil, a prodrug of mycophenolic acid, has been found to have anticancer activity against osteosarcoma in both in vitro and animal experiments, so that further investigation in humans is warranted.

METHODS

A total of 27 patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma will be enrolled into this phase II, multi-center, open-label, single-arm, two-stage clinical trial. The main objectives of this study are to determine the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in the patients. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival at 16 weeks; the secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety parameters, pharmacokinetic parameters, biomarkers, pain score, and quality of life. Mycophenolate mofetil at the initial dose of 5 g/day or lower will be administered for 4 cycles (28 days/cycle) or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dose of mycophenolate mofetil may be reduced by 1-2 g/day or withheld for some Grade 3 or Grade 4 toxicities whenever clinically needed. The duration of study participation is approximately 4-5 months, with a minimum of 12 study visits. If mycophenolate mofetil proves beneficial to some patients, as evidenced by stable disease or partial response at 16 weeks, administration of mycophenolate mofetil will continue in the extension period.

DISCUSSION

This trial is the first step in the translation of therapeutic potential of mycophenolate mofetil emerging from in vitro and animal studies into the clinical domain. It is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with high-grade locally advanced or metastatic osteosarcoma. The results will provide important information about whether or not mycophenolate mofetil is worth further development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: TCTR20190701001). The posted information will be updated as needed to reflect protocol amendments and study progress.

Endothelial cell malignancies in infants, children and adolescents: Treatment results of three Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) trials and one registry

BACKGROUND

Endothelial cell malignancies are extremely rare in childhood. New identification of genetic abnormalities (WWTR1:CAMTA1 translocation) helps to recognize potential therapeutic targets. Little is known about treatment and outcome of these patients.

METHODS

Clinical course, treatment, and outcome in patients with endothelial cell malignancies treated within the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) trials CWS-91, -96, -2002P, and the Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Registry (SoTiSaR) were analyzed (1991-2019).

RESULTS

Patients had angiosarcoma (AS) (n = 12), malignant epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) (n = 16), and kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) (n = 13). The median age was 5.39 years (range, 0.8-17.34); 33 patients had localized disease (LD), and 8 patients had metastatic disease. Therapy consisted of chemotherapy (CHT) (AS n = 8, EHE n = 9, KHE n = 5), interferon or new agent therapy (EHE n = 5, 2 KHE n = 2), microscopically or macroscopically complete resection (AS n = 3, EHE n = 6, KHE n = 3), and radiotherapy (AS n = 6, EHE n = 2, KHE n = 1). Two patients (KHE) had watch-and-wait strategy resulting in stable disease. Complete remission (CR) was achieved in AS (10/12; 83%), EHE (10/16; 63%), and KHE (5/13; 38%). The five-year EFS and OS for patients with AS was 64% (± 29 CI 95%) and 80% (± 25, CI 95%), with EHE 62% (± 24, CI 95%) and 78% (± 23, CI 95%), with KHE 33% (± 34, CI 95%) and 92% (± 15, CI 95%), respectively. Complete resection was a significant prognostic factor for AS, LD for EHE.

CONCLUSIONS

Endothelial cell malignancies in childhood have a fair outcome with multimodal treatment. New treatment options are needed for metastic disease.

PA-CRM: A continuous reassessment method for pediatric phase I oncology trials with concurrent adult trials

Pediatric phase I trials are usually carried out after the adult trial testing the same agent has started, but not completed yet. As the pediatric trial progresses, in light of the accrued interim data from the concurrent adult trial, the pediatric protocol often is amended to modify the original pediatric dose escalation design. In practice, this is done frequently in an ad hoc way, interrupting patient accrual and slowing down the trial. We developed a pediatric-continuous reassessment method (PA-CRM) to streamline this process, providing a more efficient and rigorous method to find the maximum tolerated dose for pediatric phase I oncology trials. We use a discounted joint likelihood of the adult and pediatric data, with a discount parameter controlling information borrowing between pediatric and adult trials. According to the interim adult and pediatric data, the discount parameter is adaptively updated using the Bayesian model averaging method. Numerical study shows that the PA-CRM improves the efficiency and accuracy of the pediatric trial and is robust to various model assumptions.

A Systematic Review of Pediatric Phase I Trials in Oncology: Toxicity and Outcomes in the Era of Targeted Therapies

BACKGROUND

Pediatric phase I oncology trials have historically focused on safety and toxicity, with objective response rates (ORRs) <10%. Recently, with an emphasis on targeted approaches, response rates may have changed. We analyzed outcomes of recent phase I pediatric oncology trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials published in 2012-2017, identified through PubMed and EMBASE searches conducted on March 14, 2018. Selection criteria included full-text articles with a pediatric population, cancer diagnosis, and a dose escalation schema. Each publication was evaluated for patient characteristics, therapy type, trial design, toxicity, and response.

RESULTS

Of 3,431 citations, 109 studies (2,713 patients) met eligibility criteria. Of these, 78 (72%) trials incorporated targeted therapies. Median age at enrollment/trial was 11 years (range 3-21 years). There were 2,471 patients (91%) evaluable for toxicity, of whom 300 (12.1%) experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Of 2,143 patients evaluable for response, 327 (15.3%) demonstrated an objective response. Forty-three (39%) trials had no objective responses. Nineteen trials (17%) had an ORR >25%, of which 11 were targeted trials and 8 were combination cytotoxic trials. Targeted trials demonstrated a lower DLT rate compared with cytotoxic trials (10.6% vs. 14.7%; p = .003) with similar ORRs (15.0% vs. 15.9%; p = .58).

CONCLUSION

Pediatric oncology phase I trials in the current treatment era have an acceptable DLT rate and a pooled ORR of 15.3%. A subset of trials with target-specific enrollment or combination cytotoxic therapies showed high response rates, highlighting the importance of these strategies in early phase trials.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Enrollment in phase I oncology trials is crucial for development of novel therapies. This systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials provides an assessment of outcomes of phase I trials in children, with a specific focus on the impact of targeted therapies. These data may aid in evaluating the landscape of current phase I options for patients and enable more informed communication regarding risk and benefit of phase I clinical trial participation. The results also suggest that, in the current treatment era, there is a rationale to increase earlier access to targeted therapy trials for this refractory patient population.

Parents' and children's comprehension and decision in a paediatric early phase oncology trial: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To analyse parents' and children's understanding of consent information and assess their decision-making process in paediatric oncology.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTINGS

Eleven French paediatric oncology units.

PATIENTS

Parents and children who have been asked to give consent for participation in an early phase trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-seven children and 119 parents were questioned using an audio-recorded semistructured interview.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The participants' understanding of nine elements of the informed consent was assessed by comparing their answers with the informed consent leaflet. Their decision-making process was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Most parents and children had an excellent understanding regarding their participation in a clinical trial (respectively 88.2% and 48.6%), the right to withdraw (76.5% and 43.2%) and the prospects of collective benefits (74.8% and 48.6%). By contrast, less than half of the parents and few of the children correctly understood the alternatives (respectively 47.5% and 27%), the risks related to participation (44.5% and 10.8%), the prospects of individual benefits (33.6% and 10.8%) and the purpose of the clinical trial (12.6% and 2.7%). Twenty-six (70.3%) children participated in the decision-making process. Most parents and children felt they had no choice but to participate in the trial to have access to a new anticancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

What might appear to be a poor understanding of the research protocol may actually correspond to the families' interpretation of the situation as a coping mechanism. All children (except infants) should get age-tailored information in order for them to have a meaningful involvement in research.

Well-Being of Child and Family Participants in Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Pediatric oncology phase 1 clinical trials (P1Ts) are essential to developing new anticancer therapies; however, they raise complex ethical concerns about balancing the need for this research with the well-being of participating children. The purpose of this integrative review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence of how P1T participation, which begins with consent and ends with the transition off the P1T, can affect the well-being (either positively or negatively) of children with cancer. The Resilience in Individuals and Families Affected by Cancer Framework, which has an outcome of well-being, was used to synthesize findings.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles on the experiences of child (n = 21) and adult (n = 31) P1T participants were identified through systematic searches.

DATA EVALUATION

Articles were evaluated on rigor and relevance to P1T participant experiences as high, medium, or low.

SYNTHESIS

Minimal empirical evidence was found regarding the effect of P1T participation on the well-being of children with cancer. Adult P1T participant experiences provide insights that could also be important to children's P1T experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To achieve a balanced approach in P1T consent discussions, nurses and healthcare providers who work with children considering participation in a P1T should share the potential effect of participation on participants' well-being.

Parental Experiences of Child Participation in a Phase I Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial: "We Don't Have Time to Waste"

Children with cancer are only eligible for phase I clinical trials (P1Ts) when no known curative therapy remains. However, the primary aims of P1Ts are not focused on directly benefiting participants. This raises ethical concerns that can be best evaluated by exploring the experiences of participants. An empirical phenomenology study, using an adapted Colaizzi method, was conducted of 11 parents' lived experiences of their child's participation in a pediatric oncology P1T. Study findings were that parents' experiences reflected what it meant to have a child fighting to survive high-risk cancer. Although elements specific to P1T participation were identified, more pervasive was parents' sense of running out of time to find an effective treatment and needing to use time they had with their child well. Even though some problems were identified, overall parents did not regret their child's P1T participation and would recommend P1Ts to other parents of children with cancer.

R-TPI: rolling toxicity probability interval design to shorten the duration and maintain safety of phase I trials

To shorten trial duration and improve safety of Phase I trials, we propose R-TPI, a rolling enrollment design that combines the features in model-based designs such as mTPI-2 and rule-based designs such as rolling six. R-TPI employs a novel rolling enrollment scheme, which allows concurrent patient enrollment that is faster than cohort-based enrollment. Bench-marking against rolling six, we find that the R-TPI design is as fast in completing clinical trials but with fewer toxicity events and higher chance of finding the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in the single scenario laid out in the 2008 rolling six publication. We also find that in a broad setting involving multiple scenarios, R-TPI is generally faster, safer, and more reliable than standard designs. R-TPI is a general design that can be applied to adult and pediatric Phase I trials. It reduces the length of trial duration, leads to safer trials with fewer toxicity events, and maintains relatively a high chance of identifying the MTD.

Phase I clinical study of oral olaparib in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors: study protocol

Background

There is no established standard chemotherapy for recurrent pediatric solid tumors such as neuroblastoma and sarcoma. Since some of these tumor cells show dysfunctions in homologous recombination repair, the goal is to conduct a phase I study of olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. In this clinical trial, the aims are to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of olaparib in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors and to recommend a dose for phase II trials.

Methods

In this open-label, multicenter study, olaparib tablets (62.5, 125, and 187.5 mg/m² b.i.d.) will be administered orally in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Patients aged 3 to 18 years with recurrent pediatric solid tumors are eligible. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses will also be performed.

Discussion

This study aims to extend the indications for olaparib by assessing its safety and efficacy in pediatric refractory solid tumor patients.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR (UMIN000025521); Registered on January 4, 2017.

Updated Recommendations on the Diagnosis, Management, and Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria for Patients With Renal Medullary Carcinoma

Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is one of the most aggressive renal cell carcinomas. It predominantly afflicts young adults and adolescents with sickle cell trait and other sickle hemoglobinopathies, and is refractory to targeted and antiangiogenic therapies used in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy is the mainstay for RMC treatment. On the basis of recent advances in the diagnosis, management, and clinical trial development for RMC, a panel of experts met in October 2017 and developed updated consensus recommendations to inform clinicians, researchers, and patients. Because RMC often aggressively recurs while patients are still recovering from nephrectomy, upfront chemotherapy should be considered for most patients, including those with localized disease. After safety and dosing information has been established in adults, phase II and III trials enrolling patients with RMC should allow patients aged 12 years and older to be accrued. Patients with the very rare unclassified renal cell carcinoma with medullary phenotype variant should be included in RMC trials. Medical providers should be aware that RMC can afflict subjects of all races, and not only those of African descent, and that the presence of sickle cell trait, or of other sickle hemoglobinopathies, can affect drug responses and toxicity.

Lack of value of juvenile animal toxicity studies for supporting the safety of pediatric oncology phase I trials

Toxicity studies in juvenile animals (JAS) are sometimes performed to support clinical trials in pediatric oncology patients, and there are differing conclusions on the value of JAS for pediatric drug development. This manuscript provides a review of the pediatric clinical data for 25 molecularly-targeted and 4 biologic anticancer therapeutics. Other publications that evaluated the value of JAS in pediatric drug development focus on differences in toxicity between juvenile animals and adult animals. The present paper examines pediatric-specific clinical findings to focus on dose setting in pediatric oncology patients and safety monitoring in terms of the potential value of JAS. Our assessment demonstrates that pediatric starting doses were safe for all 29 therapeutics examined in that no life-threatening toxicities occurred in the first cohort, and overall the ratio of the pediatric maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the recommended adult dose was close to 1. In addition, the 4 serious adverse events (SAEs) that weren't detectable with standard monitoring plans for pediatric oncology trials would not have been detectable in a standard JAS. This review demonstrates that safe starting doses in pediatric oncology patients for these therapeutics could have been solely based on adult doses without any knowledge of findings in JAS.

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.

Risk and surrogate benefit for pediatric Phase I trials in oncology: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as "small sample size, non‑randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested." We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.

Outcome of children and adolescents with central nervous system tumors in phase I trials

Central nervous system (CNS) tumors are a leading cause of death in pediatric oncology. New drugs are desperately needed to improve survival. We evaluated the outcome of children and adolescents with CNS tumors participating in phase I trials within the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium. Patients with solid tumors aged < 18 years at enrollment in their first dose-finding trial between 2000 and 2014 at eight ITCC centers were included retrospectively. Survival was evaluated using univariate/multivariate analyses. Overall, 114 patients were included (109 evaluable for efficacy). Median age was 10.2 years (range 1.0-17.9). Main diagnoses included: medulloblastoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumors (32.5%) and high-grade gliomas (23.7%). Complete/partial responses (CR/PR) were reported in 7.3% patients and stable disease (SD) in 23.9%. Performance status of 90-100%, school/work attendance, normal ALT/AST and CR/PR/SD correlated with better overall survival (OS) in the univariate analysis. No variables assessable at screening/enrollment were associated with OS in the multivariate analysis. Five patients (4.5%) were discontinued from study due to toxicity. No toxic deaths occurred. Median OS was 11.9 months with CR/PR, 14.5 months with SD and 3.7 months with progressive disease (p < 0.001). The enrollment of children and adolescents with CNS tumors in phase I trials is feasible, safe and offers potential benefit for the patients. Sustained disease stabilization has a promising role as a marker of anti-tumor activity in children with CNS tumors participating in phase I trials.

Revisiting the definition of dose-limiting toxicities in paediatric oncology phase I clinical trials: An analysis from the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Dose-escalation trials aim to identify the maximum tolerated dose and, importantly, the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and rely on the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first treatment cycle. Molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) often follow continuous and prolonged administrations, displaying a distinct toxicity profile compared to conventional chemotherapeutics, and classical DLT criteria might not be appropriate to evaluate MTAs' toxicity. We investigated this issue in children.

METHODS

The Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer Consortium (ITCC) phase I trials of novel anticancer agents between 2004 and 2015 were analysed. Data from investigational product, trial design, items defining DLT/RP2D were extracted. A survey on dose-escalation process, DLTs and RP2D definition was conducted among the ITCC clinical trials committee members.

RESULTS

Thirteen phase I trials with 15 dose-escalation cohorts were analysed. They explored 11 MTAs and 2 novel cytotoxics; 12 evaluated DLT during cycle 1. Definition of DLT was heterogeneous: Grade III-IV haematologic toxicities that were transient or asymptomatic and grade III-IV non-haematological toxicities manageable with adequate supportive care were often excluded, whereas some included dose intensity or grade II toxicities into DLT. None of the studies considered delayed toxicity into the RP2D definition.

CONCLUSION

DLTs should be homogeneously defined across trials, limiting the number of exceptions due to specific toxicities. Dose escalation should still be based on safety data from cycle 1, but delayed and overall toxicities, pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamic data should be considered to refine the final RP2D. The evaluation of long-term toxicity in the developing child cannot be adequately addressed in early trials.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility: Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Friends of Cancer Research Minimum Age Working Group

Purpose Children have historically been excluded from first-in-human studies of promising new cancer drugs and later phase adult clinical trials. Delays in evaluation may result in off-label use without dosing information as the only access to new drugs. A multistakeholder workshop was convened in May 2016 by ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research to identify opportunities for when it would be scientifically appropriate to expand trial eligibility to include children younger than age 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials. Methods This group convened experts from academia, government, and industry to review barriers to enrolling children and adolescents in oncology clinical trials. We evaluated the historical context, published literature, regulatory considerations, and myriad risks and benefits associated with lowering the age of enrollment on oncology clinical trials. Results We conclude that many of the historical concerns about including children early in oncology clinical trials do not apply in the current scientific and clinical environment of pediatric oncology and drug development; we provide specific recommendations for how the inclusion of children in early-phase investigational cancer drug trials might be accomplished. Automatic inclusion of pediatric patients is appropriate in early-phase trials that assess dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics in a variety of tumor types and later phase trials that assess efficacy in a specific disease that spans adult and pediatric populations. Conclusion Including children in appropriately designed adult clinical oncology trials is feasible and can be done in a way that enhances their access to these agents without compromising safety or development strategies.

Bridging Adult Experience to Pediatrics in Oncology Drug Development

Pediatric drug development in the United States has grown under the current regulations made permanent by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. Over 1200 pediatric studies have now been submitted to the US FDA, but there is still a high rate of failure to obtain pediatric labeling for the indication pursued. Pediatric oncology represents special problems in that the disease is most often dissimilar to any cancer found in the adult population. Therefore, the development of drug dosing in pediatric oncology patients represents a special challenge. Potential approaches to pediatric dosing in oncology patients include extrapolation of efficacy from adult studies in those few cases where the disease is similar, inclusion of adolescent patients in adult trials when possible, and bridging the adult dose to the pediatric dose. An analysis of the recommended phase 2 dose for 40 molecularly targeted agents in pediatric patients provides some insight into current practices. Increased knowledge of tumor biology and efforts to identify and validate molecular targets and genetic abnormalities that drive childhood cancers can lead to increased opportunities for precision medicine in the treatment of pediatric cancers.

Understanding Treatment Burden and Quality of Life Impact of Participating in an Early-Phase Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EPTs) have led to new, more effective treatment options for children with cancer. Despite the extensive use of EPTs in pediatric oncology, little is known about parent and child experiences during EPT participation. The purposes of this pilot study were to assess the feasibility and preliminary results of having children with cancer and their parents complete measures of treatment burden and quality of life (QOL) concurrent with EPT participation.

METHODS

In this descriptive, longitudinal, pilot study, parents and children were followed for the first 60 days of an EPT. Feasibility was assessed by participant enrollment and retention and completion of measures. Measures completed included the following: demographic form (completed at baseline); Diary of Trial Experiences to capture treatment burden (completed ongoing); and PedsQL™ Quality of Life Inventories, Cancer Modules, and Family Impact Module (completed at baseline, post-first disease evaluation, and off-study). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Feasibility goals of enrollment, retention, and measure completion were partially met. Preliminary treatment burden and QOL results are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

While QOL assessments may provide insight into EPT experiences, future studies need to be conducted at multiple sites and enrollment goals must account for participant attrition.

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.

A comparison of safety and efficacy of cytotoxic versus molecularly targeted drugs in pediatric phase I solid tumor oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Prior reviews of phase I pediatric oncology trials involving primarily cytotoxic agents have reported objective response rates (ORRs) and toxic death rates of 7.9-9.6% and 0.5%, respectively. These data may not reflect safety and efficacy in phase I trials of molecularly targeted (targeted) drugs.

METHODS

A systematic review of pediatric phase I solid tumor trials published in 1990-2013 was performed. The published reports were evaluated for patient characteristics, toxicity information, and response numbers.

RESULTS

A total of 143 phase I pediatric clinical trials enrolling 3,896 children involving 53 targeted and 48 cytotoxic drugs were identified. A meta-analysis demonstrated that the ORR is 2.1-fold higher with cytotoxic drugs (0.066 vs. 0.031 per subject; P = 0.007). By contrast, the pooled estimate of the stable disease rate (SDR) is similar for cytotoxic and targeted drugs (0.2 vs. 0.23 per subject; P = 0.27).  The pooled estimate of the dose-limiting toxicity rate is 1.8-fold larger with cytotoxic drugs (0.24 vs. 0.13 per subject; P = 0.0003). The hematologic grade 3-4 (G3/4) toxicity rate is 3.6-fold larger with cytotoxic drugs (0.43 vs. 0.12 per treatment course; P = 0.0001); however, the nonhematologic G3/4 toxicities and toxic deaths occur at similar rates for cytotoxic and targeted drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

In phase I pediatric solid tumor trials, ORRs were significantly higher for cytotoxic versus targeted agents. SDRs were similar in targeted and cytotoxic drug trials. Patients treated with cytotoxic agents were more likely to experience hematologic G3/4 toxicities than those patients receiving targeted drugs.

Enrolling Adolescents in Disease/Target-Appropriate Adult Oncology Clinical Trials of Investigational Agents

The enrollment of adolescents with cancer in clinical trials is much lower than that of younger pediatric patients. For adolescents with "adult-type" cancers, lack of access to relevant trials is cited as one of the reasons for this discrepancy. Adolescents are generally not eligible for enrollment in adult oncology trials, and initial pediatric trials for many drugs are conducted years later, often after the drug is approved. As a result, accrual of adolescents to these trials may be slow due to off-label use, prospectively collected safety and efficacy data are lacking at the time of initial approval, and, most importantly, these adolescents have delayed access to effective therapies. To facilitate earlier access to investigational and approved drugs for adolescent patients with cancer, and because drug exposure is most often similar in adolescents and adults, we recommend the inclusion of adolescents (ages 12-17) in disease- and target-appropriate adult oncology trials. This approach requires careful monitoring for any differential safety signals, appropriate pharmacokinetic evaluations, and ensuring that ethical requirements are met. Inclusion of adolescents in adult oncology trials will require the cooperation of investigators, cooperative groups, industry, institutional review boards, and regulatory agencies to overcome real and perceived barriers. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 9-12. ©2016 AACR.

Participation in a clinical trial for a child with cancer is burdensome for a minority of children

AIM

This study explored how parents who had lost a child to cancer felt about them taking part in a clinical trial.

METHODS

A retrospective questionnaire was sent to parents who had lost a child to cancer. They were asked whether their child took part in a clinical trial during their palliative phase, their motives for their child's participation, how they perceived their child's burden and whether they would, hypothetically speaking, enrol again.

RESULTS

The 24 parents of 16 deceased children who had participated in a clinical trial explained their motives for their child's participation. The most common answers, with multiple responses, were treatment for future patients (n = 16), hope for a cure (n = 9) and prolonging their child's life (n = 6). Eight parents said that participating was not burdensome for their child and four said it was very burdensome, with others answering in between. None of the parents would decline participation if they would be in the same situation again.

CONCLUSION

Performing clinical trials, even in a vulnerable population, such as children with cancer at the end of life, may not always lead to increased burden. None of the parents would in future, given the same circumstances, decline participation in a clinical trial.