Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single-Agent Anticancer Therapies

Risk and Benefit for Basket Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncology research is increasingly adopting new clinical trial models that implement the concept of precision medicine. One of these is the basket clinical trial design. Basket clinical trials allow new treatments to be evaluated across multiple tumor types. Patients recruited to basket clinical trials share certain molecular characteristics of their cancer that are predictive of clinical benefit from the experimental treatment.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to describe the risks and benefits of basket clinical trials in oncology.

METHODS

Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023406401). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports of basket clinical trials in oncology published between 1 January, 2001, and 14 June, 2023. We measured the risk by treatment-related adverse events (grades 3, 4, and 5), and the benefit by objective response rate. We also extracted and analyzed data on progression-free survival and overall survival. When possible, data were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 126 arms of 75 basket clinical trials accounting for 7659 patients. The pooled objective response rate was 18.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.8-21.1). The rate of treatment-related death was 0.7% (95% CI 0.4-1.0), while 30.4% (95% CI 24.2-36.7) of patients experienced grade 3/4 drug-related toxicity. The median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.6-3.9), and the median overall survival was 8.9 months (95% CI 6.7-10.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide an empirical basis for communicating about the risks and benefits of basket clinical trials and for refining new models of clinical trials applied in precision medicine.

Relevance, Risks, and Benefits of Early-Phases Clinical Trials Participations for Patients With Hematological Malignancies From 2008 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed.

RESULTS

Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients.

A taxonomy of the factors contributing to the overtreatment of cancer patients at the end of life. What is the problem? Why does it happen? How can it be addressed?

Many patients with cancer approaching the end of life (EOL) continue to receive treatments that are unlikely to provide meaningful clinical benefit, potentially causing more harm than good. This is called overtreatment at the EOL. Overtreatment harms patients by causing side-effects, increasing health care costs, delaying important discussions about and preparation for EOL care, and occasionally accelerating death. Overtreatment can also strain health care resources, reducing those available for palliative care services, and cause moral distress for clinicians and treatment teams. This article reviews the factors contributing to the overtreatment of patients with cancer at the EOL. It addresses the complex range of social, psychological, and cognitive factors affecting oncologists, patients, and patients' family members that contribute to this phenomenon. This intricate and complex dynamic complicates the task of reducing overtreatment. Addressing these driving factors requires a cooperative approach involving oncologists, oncology nurses, professional societies, public policy, and public education. We therefore discuss approaches and strategies to mitigate cultural and professional influences driving overtreatment, reduce the seduction of new technologies, improve clinician-patient communication regarding therapeutic options for patients approaching the EOL, and address cognitive biases that can contribute to overtreatment at the EOL.

Factors Associated with Inclusion of Japan in Phase I Multiregional Clinical Trials in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Early inclusion of Japan in the global development program could be a key factor in reducing the drug lag, making participation in phase I multiregional clinical trials (Ph. I MRCTs) an important consideration for oncology drug development in Japan. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the inclusion of Japan in Ph. I MRCTs in oncology.

METHODS

We compared the trial design, target population, type of primary tested drug, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile for Ph. I MRCTs with or without Japan conducted by the top 20 companies in more than two countries and started between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-seven Ph. I MRCTs included Japan, and 697 did not. Detailed features of the Ph. I MRCTs in oncology were summarized, and several factors (trial design, target population, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile) associated with inclusion of Japan in the Ph. I MRCTs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important for Japanese subsidiaries within global pharmaceutical companies to closely communicate with the headquarters based on medical practice and unmet needs in Japan to join global development from an early stage. In addition, further efforts to attract emerging biopharmaceutical companies to Japan from the regulatory and/or political perspectives would be needed, thereby preventing drug lag in Japan.

A systematic review of early phase studies for children and young people with relapsed and refractory rhabdomyosarcoma: The REFoRMS-SR project

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the commonest soft tissue sarcoma in children. Around one-third of children with rhabdomyosarcoma experience relapse or have refractory disease, which is associated with a poor prognosis. This systematic review of early phase studies in pediatric relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma was conducted to inform future research and provide accurate information to families and clinicians making difficult treatment choices. Nine databases and five trial registries were searched in June 2021. Early phase studies of interventions for disease control in patients under 18 years old with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma were eligible. No language/geographic restrictions were applied. Studies conducted after 2000 were included. Survival outcomes, response rates, quality of life and adverse event data were extracted. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment (Downs and Black Checklist) were conducted by two researchers. Owing to heterogeneity in the included studies, narrative synthesis was conducted. Of 16,965 records screened, 129 published studies including over 1100 relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma patients were eligible. Most studies evaluated systemic therapies. Where reported, 70% of studies reported a median progression-free survival ≤6 months. Objective response rate was 21.6%. Adverse events were mostly hematological. One-hundred and seven trial registry records of 99 studies were also eligible, 63 of which report they are currently recruiting. Study quality was limited by poor and inconsistent reporting. Outcomes for children with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma who enroll on early phase studies are poor. Improving reporting quality and consistency would facilitate the synthesis of early phase studies in relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021266254).

Exploratory Analysis of Drug Lag in New Oncology Drugs Between Japan and the US

BACKGROUND

Drug lag in Japan has greatly decreased over the past decades; however, new instances of drug lag have appeared along with changes in the circumstances of oncology drug development. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the approval lag for new oncology drugs between Japan and the United States (US) over the past decade by comparing approval dates and modalities, lead indications, approval types, and phase I strategies for earlier approval in Japan.

METHOD

We descriptively evaluated the characteristics of 117 new oncology drugs approved in either Japan or the US from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Seventy-one drugs were approved in Japan, 112 in the US, five only in Japan, and 46 only in the US. Interestingly, new oncology drugs were predominantly developed by the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in Japan; however, the opposite was true for drugs that were not yet approved in Japan. However, no clear trend was observed in the relationship between drug lag and the studied factors, except for the phase I strategy. There was a numerical but clear trend in which a higher percentage of phase I multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) in the drug development strategy was observed for drugs with earlier approval in Japan.

CONCLUSION

Participation in global drug development during the early stages, such as during phase I MRCTs, is one of the keys to successfully minimizing this new instance of drug lag in Japan.

Integrating Early-Stage Drug Development with Clinical Networks; Challenges and Opportunities: The City of Hope Developing Experience

Recent data suggest that patients with advanced cancer who participate in biomarker/genomically informed early-stage clinical trials experience clinical benefit. While most early-stage clinical trials are conducted in major academic centers, the majority of cancer patients in the United States are treated in community practices. Here, we describe ongoing efforts at the City of Hope Cancer Center to integrate our network community oncology clinical practices into our academic, centralized biomarker/genomic-driven, early-stage clinical trial program to build an understanding of the approaches that provide the benefits of early-stage clinical trial participation to community patients. Our efforts include three key initiatives: the development of a virtual "Refractory Disease" phase 1 trial matching televideo clinic, the construction of infrastructure to support the expansion of phase 1 clinical trials to a distant regional clinical satellite hub, and the implementation of an enterprise-wide precision medicine, germline, and somatic testing program. Our work at City of Hope may serve as an example to facilitate similar efforts at other institutions.

Outcome of Children and Adolescents With Relapsed/Refractory/Progressive Malignancies Treated With Molecularly Informed Targeted Drugs in the Pediatric Precision Oncology Registry INFORM

PURPOSE

INFORM is an international pediatric precision oncology registry, prospectively collecting molecular and clinical data of children with recurrent, progressive, or very high-risk malignancies. We have previously identified a subgroup of patients with improved outcomes on the basis of molecular profiling. The present analysis systematically investigates progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients receiving matching targeted treatment (MTT) with the most frequently applied drug classes and its correlation with underlying molecular alterations.

METHODS

A cohort of 519 patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk malignancies who had completed a follow-up of at least 2 years or shorter in the case of death or loss to follow-up was analyzed. Survival times were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

MTT with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK), and B-RAF kinase (BRAF) inhibitors showed significantly improved PFS (P = .012) and OS (P = .036) in comparison with conventional treatment or no treatment. However, analysis of the four most commonly applied MTT groups, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK- n = 19), cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK- n = 23), other kinase (n = 62), and mammalian-target of rapamycin (mTOR- n = 20) inhibitors, did not reveal differences in PFS or OS compared with conventional treatment or no treatment in patients with similar molecular pathway alterations. We did not observe differences in the type of pathway alterations (eg, copy number alterations, single-nucleotide variants, InDels, gene fusions) addressed by MTT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with respective molecular alterations benefit from treatment with ALK, NTRK, and BRAF inhibitors as previously described. No survival benefit was observed with MTT for mutations in the MEK, CDK, other kinase, or mTOR signaling pathways. The noninterventional character of a registry has to be taken into account when interpreting these data and underlines the need for innovative interventional biomarker-driven clinical trials in pediatric oncology.

Identifying Early-Phase Clinical Trial Participants at Risk for Experiencing Worse Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To identify early-phase clinical trial (EP-CT) participants at risk for experiencing worse clinical outcomes and describe receipt of supportive care services.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services. The validated Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognosis score was calculated using data at the time of EP-CT enrollment (scores range from 0 to 3; scores ≥ 2 indicate poor prognosis). Differences in patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services were compared on the basis of RMH scores.

RESULTS

Among 350 patients (median age = 63.2 years [range, 23.0-84.3 years], 57.1% female, 98.0% metastatic cancer), 31.7% had an RMH score indicating a poor prognosis. Those with poor prognosis RMH scores had worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P < .001), shorter time on trial (HR, 1.53; P < .001), and lower likelihood of completing the dose-limiting toxicity period (odds ratio, 0.42; P = .006) versus those with good prognosis scores. Patients with poor prognosis scores had greater risk of emergency room visits (HR, 1.66; P = .037) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.69; P = .016) while on trial, and earlier hospice enrollment (HR, 2.22; P = .006). Patients with poor prognosis scores were significantly more likely to receive palliative care consultation (46.8% v 27.6%; P < .001), but not other supportive care services.

CONCLUSION

This study found that RMH prognosis score could identify patients at risk for decreased survival, shorter time on trial, and greater use of health care services. The findings underscore the need to develop supportive care interventions targeting EP-CT participants' distinct needs.

Early drug development in solid tumours: analysis of National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase 1 trials

BACKGROUND

The low expectation of clinical benefit from phase 1 cancer therapeutics trials might negatively affect patient and physician participation, study reimbursement, and slow the progress of oncology research. Advances in cancer drug development, meanwhile, might have favourably improved treatment responses; however, little comprehensive data exist describing the response and toxicity associated with phase 1 trials across solid tumours. The aim of the study is to evaluate the trend of toxicity and response in phase 1 trials for solid tumours over time.

METHODS

We analysed patient-level data from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigator-initiated phase 1 trials for solid tumours, from Jan 1, 2000, to May 31, 2019. We assessed risks of treatment-related death (grade 5 toxicity ratings possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to treatment), all on-treatment deaths (deaths during protocol treatment regardless of attribution), grade 3-4 toxicity, and proportion of overall response (complete response and partial response) and complete response rate in the study periods of 2000-05, 2006-12, and 2013-2019, and evaluated their trends over time. We also analysed cancer type-specific and investigational agent-specific response, and analysed the trend of response in each cancer type over time. Univariate associations of overall response rates with patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status, BMI, albumin concentration, and haemoglobin concentration), enrolment period, investigational agents, and trial design were assessed using risk ratio based on the modified Poisson regression model.

FINDINGS

We analysed 465 protocols that enrolled 13 847 patients using 261 agents. 144 (31%) trials used a monotherapy and 321 (69%) used combination therapies. The overall treatment-related death rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·5-0·8) across all periods. Risks of treatment-related deaths did not change over time (p=0·52). All on-treatment death risk during the study period was 8·0% (95% CI 7·6-8·5). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological; grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 2336 (16·9%) of 13 847 patients, lymphopenia in 1230 (8·9%), anaemia in 894 (6·5%), and thrombocytopenia in 979 (7·1%). The overall response rate for all trials during the study period was 12·2% (95% CI 11·5-12·8; 1133 of 9325 patients) and complete response rate was 2·7% (2·4-3·0; 249 of 9325). Overall response increased from 9·6% (95% CI 8·7-10·6) in 2000-05 to 18·0% (15·7-20·5) in 2013-19, and complete response rates from 2·5% (2·0-3·0) to 4·3% (3·2-5·7). Overall response rates for combination therapy were substantially higher than for monotherapy (15·8% [15·0-16·8] vs 3·5% [2·8-4·2]). The overall response by class of agents differed across diseases. Anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with higher overall response rate for bladder, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. DNA repair inhibitors were associated with higher overall response rate in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. The rates of overall response over time differed markedly by disease; there were notable improvements in bladder, breast, and kidney cancer and melanoma, but no change in the low response of pancreatic and colon cancer.

INTERPRETATION

During the past 20 years, the response rate in phase 1 trials nearly doubled without an increase in the treatment-related death rate. However, there is significant heterogeneity in overall response by various factors such as cancer type, investigational agent, and trial design. Therefore, informed decision making is crucial for patients before participating in phase 1 trials. This study provides updated encouraging outcomes of modern phase 1 trials in solid tumours.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

PRECISION: the Belgian molecular profiling program of metastatic cancer for clinical decision and treatment assignment

PRECISION is an initiative from the Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO) in collaboration with several stakeholders, encompassing four programs that aim to boost genomic and clinical knowledge with the ultimate goal to offer patients with metastatic solid tumors molecularly guided treatments. The PRECISION 1 study has led to the creation of a clinico-genomic database. The Belgian Approach for Local Laboratory Extensive Tumor Testing (BALLETT) and GeNeo studies will increase the number of patients with advanced cancer that have comprehensive genotyping of their cancer. The PRECISION 2 project consists of investigator-initiated phase II studies aiming to provide access to a targeted drug for patients whose tumors harbor actionable mutations in case the matched drug is not available through reimbursement or clinical trials in Belgium.

Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Umbrella clinical trials in precision oncology are designed to tailor therapies to the specific genetic changes within a tumor. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for umbrella clinical trials. The aim of our systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles in cancer umbrella trials testing targeted drugs or a combination of targeted therapy with chemotherapy.

METHODS

Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171494). We searched Embase and PubMed for cancer umbrella trials testing targeted agents or a combination of targeted therapies with chemotherapy. We included solid tumor studies published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019. We measured the risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), and the benefit by objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). When possible, data were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 6207 records identified, we included 31 sub-trials or arms of nine umbrella trials (N = 1637). The pooled overall ORR was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-25.9). The ORR for targeted therapies in the experimental arms was significantly lower than the ORR for a combination of targeted therapy drugs with chemotherapy: 13.3% vs 39.0%; p = 0.005. The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.9-2.9), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-8.4). The overall drug-related death rate (drug-related grade 5 AEs rate) was 0.8% (95% CI 0.3-1.4), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 AE rate per person was 0.45 (95% CI 0.40-0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, on average, one in five cancer patients in umbrella trials published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019 responded to a given therapy, while one in 125 died due to drug toxicity. Our findings do not support the expectation of increased patient benefit in cancer umbrella trials. Further studies should investigate whether umbrella trial design and the precision oncology approach improve patient outcomes.

Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology

Phase I trials often represent the first occasion where new cancer strategies are tested in patients. Various developments in cancer biology, methodology, regulation, and medical ethics have altered the ethical landscape of such trials. We provide a narrative review of contemporary ethical challenges in design, conduct, and reporting of phase I cancer trials and outline recommendations for addressing each. We organized our review around four topics, supplementing the first three with scoping reviews: (1) benefit/risk, (2) research biopsies, (3) therapeutic misconception and misestimation, and (4) reporting. The main ethical challenges of conducting phase I trials stem from three issues. First, phase I trials often involve higher research burden and scientific uncertainty compared with other cancer trials. Second, many patients arrive at phase I trials at a transitional point in their illness trajectory where they have exhausted standard survival-extending options. Third, phase I trial results play a major role in informing downstream drug development and regulatory decisions. Together, these issues create distinct pressures for study design, ethical review, informed consent, and reporting. Developments in methodology, regulation, cancer biology, and ethical awareness have helped mitigate some of these challenges, while introducing others. We conclude our review with a series of recommendations regarding trial design, ethical review, consent, and reporting. We also outline several unresolved questions that, if addressed, would strengthen the ethical foundation of phase I cancer trials.

Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

For research with human participants to be ethical, risk must be in a favorable balance with potential benefits. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for pediatric cancer phase II trials testing targeted therapies.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of preliminary efficacy and safety profiles of phase II targeted therapy clinical trials in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020146491). We searched EMBASE and PubMed for phase II pediatric cancer trials testing targeted agents. We included solid and hematological malignancy studies published between 1 January, 2015 and 27 February, 2020. We measured risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, and benefit by response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 34 clinical trials (1202 patients) that met our eligibility criteria. The pooled overall response rate was 24.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5-34.2) and was lower in solid tumors, 6.4% (95% CI 3.2-9.6), compared with hematological malignancies, 55.1% (95% CI 35.9-74.3); p < 0.001. The overall fatal drug-related (grade 5) adverse event rate was 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-2.5), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 adverse event rate per person was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an estimate for the risks and benefits of participation in pediatric phase II cancer trials. These data may be used as an empirical basis for informed communication about benefits and burdens in pediatric oncology research.