Human Infection Challenge Experiments: Then and Now

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.

Impact of retrospective data verification to prepare the ICON6 trial for use in a marketing authorization application

Background:

The ICON6 trial (ISRCTN68510403) is a phase III academic-led, international, randomized, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the addition of cediranib to chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. It investigated the use of placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (arm A), cediranib alongside chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (arm B) and cediranib throughout both periods (arm C). Results of the primary comparison showed a meaningful gain in progression-free survival (time to progression or death from any cause) when comparing arm A (placebo) with arm C (cediranib). As a consequence of the positive results, AstraZeneca was engaged with the Medical Research Council trials unit to discuss regulatory submission using ICON6 as the single pivotal trial.

Methods:

A relatively limited level of on-site monitoring, single data entry and investigator’s local evaluation of progression were used on trial. In order to submit a license application, it was decided that (a) extensive retrospective source data verification of medical records against case report forms should be performed, (b) further quality control checks for accuracy of data entry should be performed and (c) blinded independent central review of images used to define progression should be undertaken. To assess the value of these extra activities, we summarize the impact on both efficacy and safety outcomes.

Results:

Data point changes were minimal; those key to the primary results had a 0.47% error rate (36/7686), and supporting data points had a 0.18% error rate (109/59,261). The impact of the source data verification and quality control processes were analyzed jointly. The conclusion drawn for the primary outcome measure of progression-free survival between arm A and arm C was unchanged. The log-rank test p-value changed only at the sixth decimal place, the hazard ratio does not change from 0.57 with the exception of a marginal change in its upper bound (0.74–0.73) and the median progression-free survival benefit from arm C remained at 2.4 months. Separately, the blinded independent central review of progression scans was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Estimates and p values varied slightly but overall demonstrated a difference in arms, which is consistent with the initial result. Some increases in toxicity were observed, though these were generally minor, with the exception of hypertension. However, none of these increases were systematically biased toward one arm.

Conclusion:

The conduct of this pragmatic, academic-sponsored trial was sufficient given the robustness of the results, shown by the results remaining largely unchanged following retrospective verification despite not being designed for use in a marketing authorization. The burden of such comprehensive retrospective effort required to ensure the results of ICON6 were acceptable to regulators is difficult to justify.

Model free audit methodology for bias evaluation of tumour progression in oncology

Many oncology studies incorporate a blinded independent central review (BICR) to make an assessment of the integrity of the primary endpoint, progression free survival. Recently, it has been suggested that, in order to assess the potential for bias amongst investigators, a BICR amongst only a sample of patients could be performed; if evidence of bias is detected, according to a predefined threshold, the BICR is then assessed in all patients, otherwise, it is concluded that the sample was sufficient to rule out meaningful levels of bias. In this paper, we present an approach that adapts a method originally created for defining futility bounds in group sequential designs. The hazard ratio ratio, the ratio of the hazard ratio (HR) for the treatment effect estimated from the BICR to the corresponding HR for the investigator assessments, is used as the metric to define bias. The approach is simple to implement and ensures a high probability that a substantial true bias will be detected. In the absence of bias, there is a high probability of accepting the accuracy of local evaluations based on the sample, in which case an expensive BICR of all patients is avoided. The properties of the approach are demonstrated by retrospective application to a completed Phase III trial in colorectal cancer. The same approach could easily be adapted for other disease settings, and for test statistics other than the hazard ratio.

Variability of inter-observer agreement on feasibility of partial nephrectomy before and after neoadjuvant axitinib for locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): independent analysis from a phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how many patients could have undergone partial nephrectomy (PN) rather than radical nephrectomy (RN) before and after neoadjuvant axitinib therapy, as assessed by five independent urological oncologists, and to study the variability of inter-observer agreement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pre- and post-systemic treatment computed tomography scans from 22 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma in a phase II neoadjuvant axitinib trial were reviewed by five independent urological oncologists. R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score and κ statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

The median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score changed from 11 before treatment to 10 after treatment (P = 0.002). Five tumours with moderate complexity before axitinib treatment remained moderate complexity after treatment. Of 17 tumours with high complexity before axitinib treatment, three became moderate complexity after treatment. The overall κ statistic was 0.611. Moderate-complexity κ was 0.611 vs a high-complexity κ of 0.428. Before axitinib treatment the κ was 0.550 vs 0.609 after treatment. After treatment with axitinib, all five reviewers agreed that only five patients required RN (instead of eight before treatment) and that 10 patients could now undergo PN (instead of three before treatment). The odds of PN feasibility were 22.8-times higher after treatment with axitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variability in inter-observer agreement on the feasibility of PN in patients treated with neoadjuvant targeted therapy. Although more patients were candidates for PN after neoadjuvant axitinib therapy, it remains difficult to identify these patients a priori.

The imaging core lab perspective on glioblastoma imaging and response assessment in clinical trials

Multicenter clinical trials that include medical images as a key component of response assessment often involve an imaging service provider (a core laboratory or contract research organization) to collect images and often to provide independent assessments of treatment response. The brief discussion and recommendations provided here are not intended as a rigorous academic analysis but reflect the practical experience accumulated at one such institution, which has conducted the image collection and review for numerous glioblastoma trials, in every phase of drug development, encompassing over 4000 patients scanned at over 900 sites.