Search

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified., Methods: We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool., Results: The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature., Conclusion: PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The availability of targeted anticancer drugs and the relative affordability of genomic analyses has led to a growing expectation among patients with cancer that they can receive personalized treatment based on the genomic signature of their tumour. Here, we discuss some of the challenges and steps needed to bring such approaches into routine practice.

In Europe, most of the cancer clinical research dedicated to therapeutic innovations aims primarily at regulatory approval. Once an anticancer drug enters the common market, each member state determines its real-world use based on its own criteria: pricing, reimbursement and clinical indications. Such an innovation-centred clinical research landscape might neglect patient-relevant issues in real-world setting, such as comparative effectiveness of distinct treatment options or long-term safety monitoring. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) advocates reforming the current 'innovation-centred' system to a truly 'patient-centred' paradigm with systematically coordinated applied clinical research in conjunction with drug development, featuring the following strategy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The identification of new targets in cancer biology has changed the traditional approach to cancer diagnosis and treatment and therefore also to drug development. The classical 'one size fits all' approach needed to be modified into a tailored approach that took into account the patient-to-patient variation. Innovative trials are warranted, based on the integration of new types of design and integrating the knowledge coming from new disciplines like bioinformatics, biostatistics, epidemiology and health economics. Several initiatives have started at national levels but also in large pan-European academic organizations [like the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)] in the scope of generating a harmonized healthcare landscape across Europe.

Introduction: Traditional dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, which uses grade (G) 3-4 toxicity data from cycle 1 (C1) only, may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) of prolonged administration, for which late or lower grade toxicities also deserve attention., Patients and Methods: In collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and academia, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-led initiative, Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies (DLT-TARGETT), collected data from completed phase 1 trials evaluating MTAs as monotherapy. All toxicities at least possibly related to the study drugs that occurred during C1-6, their type, grade (CTCAEv3.0), and duration as well as patients' relative dose-intensity (RDI), were recorded., Results: The 54 eligible trials enrolled 2084 evaluable adult patients with solid tumours between 1999 and 2013, and evaluated small molecules (40), antibodies (seven), recombinant peptides (five) and antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (two). A maximum tolerated dose was set in 43 trials. Fifteen percent of the patients received <75% of the intended RDI in C1, but only 9.1% of them presented protocol-defined DLTs. After C1, 16-19% of patients received <75% of the intended RDI. A similar proportion of G ⩾ 3 toxicities was recorded in C1 and after C1 (936 and 1087 toxicities, respectively), with the first G⩾3 toxicity occurring after C1 in 18.6% of patients., Conclusion: Although protocol-defined DLT period is traditionally limited to C1, almost 20% of patients present significant reductions in RDI at any time in phase 1 trials of MTAs. Recommended phase 2 dose assessment should incorporate all available information from any cycle (notably lower grade toxicities leading to such RDI decrease), and be based on achieving >75% RDI., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents., Methods: A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay., Results: Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied., Conclusion: The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As health care costs are constantly rising and governments are reforming their healthcare systems there is an urgent need to reshape the European clinical research landscape. To bridge the translational gap extensive research to understand the mechanism of the agents and of the disease has to be performed and the real benefit of drugs needs to be assessed independently. Furthermore, meaningful data for reimbursement strategies will be a major goal of future clinical trials as well. Therefore, a new integrated model of clinical cancer research is needed to optimise the R&D process. Strategies to ensure that we can gather robust and relevant data about the effectiveness of various healthcare interventions have to be developed to provide optimal patient care within the limits of a healthcare budget., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this phase I/II study, the addition of lapatinib (LAP) was investigated in combination with the sequential use of both approaches TPF induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) in locally advanced larynx or hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma., Patients and Methods: Objectives were to assess maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and to recommend a safe dose of LAP when administered with 4 cycles of TPF followed by CRT., Results: Seven male patients were included. Three patients were included in the first cohort, at dose level 1 (LAP 500 mg daily plus TPF). Renal toxicity was observed among these three patients (grade 3 [n=1], grade 2 [n=1] and grade 1 [n=1]), with 1 DLT, leading to treatment interruption in this group. Nephrotoxicity was reversible after stopping LAP and hydration of the patients. In a second cohort of four patients administering docetaxel from the second cycle, 3 more DLTs were observed (grade 2 renal toxicity and grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 anorexia and grade 3 stomatitis, and grade 4 neutropenia). Based on the occurrence of 4 DLTs at the first dose level of LAP, patient recruitment was closed., Conclusion: These data indicate that LAP cannot be combined safely with full dose TPF., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Drug development is a complex and risky enterprise. Clinical development must be a thoroughly paced process sequenced by clinical and developmental questions logically ordered. Drug development parameters are changing due to better insights in system biology and mechanisms of actions. Therefore, there is a need to revisit how clinical trials are designed and sequenced., Areas Covered: In the context of this paper, the development of glufosfamide is placed in perspective of possible new trends for more optimal drug development. Glufosfamide is an alkylating agent with a favorable safety profile as its metabolic activation does not lead to the release of toxic metabolites such as acrolein. In addition, its cellular uptake mediated through the transmembrane receptors of glucose makes it an attractive agent for the treatment of highly proliferative tumors cells. These observations have served the rationale to bring this agent to the clinic from Phase I up to Phase III with a focus on pancreatic cancer. The pathways for its development have been challenging due in part to the fact that there is no proof of mechanism-based study for any alkylating agent, even those used in the clinic., Expert Opinion: Solid mechanism and translational research-based clinical trials providing evidence on the mechanism of action and how the agent interacts with the biology of the targeted disease are today an absolute requirement for the development of new agents. Optimal clinical trial design must complement system biology understanding so that 'trials designed to learn' may give robust grounds to 'clinical trials designed to conclude'.

Aims: BI 2536 is a selective and potent small-molecule inhibitor of polo-like kinase 1. We performed a multi-centre, multi-tumour phase II trial to investigate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of BI 2536 in five solid tumour types., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced head and neck, breast and ovarian cancer, soft tissue sarcoma and melanoma were selected according to protocol-defined general and tumour-specific criteria. They were 18years old, had a good performance status, adequate bone marrow, renal and liver function, measurable progressive disease and had completed other relevant systemic treatments >4weeks ago. BI 2536 200-250mg was given intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks until intolerance, progression or refusal. The study was based on a Simon two-stage design, with 12 patients entering in stage 1 and additional 25 patients to be entered in case of at least one response in the first stage. The rate of objective responses (RECIST criteria) was chosen as primary end-point., Results: Seventy six patients were included, 71 started treatment and received a median number of two cycles (four in ovarian cancer). Frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropaenia (81.6%), thrombocytopaenia (19.7%), febrile neutropaenia (19.7%), anaemia (15.5%) and pain (9.9%). We did not observe confirmed objective responses. All cohorts were closed after the entry of 14-15 eligible non-responding patients. Pharmacokinetic analyses revealed multi-compartmental behaviour and a rapid distribution of BI 2536., Conclusions: BI 2536 showed limited antitumour activity according to the design of this trial in five different tumour types. Derivatives of BI 2536 with a more favourable pharmacological profile are currently explored further in prospective studies., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The AACR-NCI-EORTC international conference held on 15-19 November 2009 in Boston (MA, USA) was a unique opportunity to discuss basic and translational research and the therapeutic implications in relation to molecular targets in cancer. The conference was divided into plenary and educational sessions, keynote presentations, special lectures, proffered papers and poster sessions. This conference is a joint effort of prestigious organizations (EORTC, NCI and AACR) that have been involved for several years in basic and clinical cancer research. In this report, we will summarize the main topics discussed at this conference.

Purpose: This phase I trial investigating the vascular targeting agent NGR-hTNF aimed to determine the (a) dose-limiting toxicities, (b) maximum tolerated dose (MTD), (c) pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, (d) vascular response by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and (e) preliminary clinical activity in solid tumors., Experimental Design: NGR-hTNF was administered once every 3 weeks by a 20- to 60-minute i.v. infusion to cohorts of three to six patients with solid tumors in escalating doses. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses in blood were done during the first four cycles. DCE-MRI was done in cycle 1 at baseline and 2 hours after the start of the infusion., Results: Sixty-nine patients received a total of 201 cycles of NGR-hTNF (0.2-60 microg/m(2)). Rigors and fever were the most frequently observed toxicities. Four dose-limiting toxicities were observed (at doses of 1.3, 8.1, and 60 microg/m(2)), of which three were infusion related. The MTD was 45 microg/m(2). The mean apparent terminal half-life ranged from 0.963 to 2.08 hours. DCE-MRI results of tumors showed a vascular response to NGR-hTNF. No objective responses were observed, but 27 patients showed stable disease with a median duration of 12 weeks., Conclusions: NGR-hTNF was well tolerated. The MTD was 45 microg/m(2) administered in 1 hour once every 3 weeks. DCE-MRI results showed the antivascular effect of NGR-hTNF. These findings call for further research for defining the optimal biological dose and clinical activity of NGR-hTNF as a single agent or in combination with cytotoxic drugs.

Purpose: Approximately 50% of glioblastomas (GBMs) are characterized by overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and EGFR gene amplification. In approximately 25% of instances, constitutively activated EGFR mutants are present. These observations make EGFR-inhibiting drugs a logical approach for trials in recurrent GBM., Patients and Methods: In a randomized, controlled, phase II trial, 110 patients with progressive GBM after prior radiotherapy were randomly assigned to either erlotinib or a control arm that received treatment with either temozolomide or carmustine (BCNU). The primary end point was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Tumor specimens obtained at first surgery were investigated for EGFR expression; EGFRvIII mutants; EGFR amplification; EGFR mutations in exons 18, 19, and 21; and pAkt. These results were correlated with outcome. Pharmacokinetic analysis was part of the study. RESULTS; Treatment was well tolerated in general; skin toxicity was the most frequent adverse effect of erlotinib. The 6-month PFS rate in the erlotinib arm was 11.4% (95% CI, 4.6% to 21.5%), and it was 24% in the control arm. Of all explored biomarkers, only low pAkt expression appeared to be of borderline significance to an improved outcome. None of the eight patients who had tumors with EGFRvIII mutant presence and PTEN expression had 6-month PFS. The use of enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants significantly increased erlotinib clearance, but pharmacokinetic findings were not related to outcome., Conclusion: Erlotinib has insufficient single-agent activity in unselected GBM. No clear biomarker associated with improved outcome to erlotinib was identified.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and the efficacy of imatinib in recurrent malignant gliomas., Patients and Methods: This was a single-arm, phase II study. Eligible patients had recurrent glioma after prior radiotherapy with an enhancing lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Three different histologic groups were studied: glioblastomas (GBM), pure/mixed (anaplastic) oligodendrogliomas (OD), and low-grade or anaplastic astrocytomas (A). Imatinib was started at a dose of 600 mg/d with dose escalation to 800 mg in case of no toxicity; during the trial this dose was increased to 800 mg/d with escalation to 1,000 mg/d. Trial design was one-stage Fleming; both an objective response and 6 months of progression-free survival (PFS) were considered a successful outcome to treatment., Results: A total of 112 patients (51 patients with GBM, 25 patients with A, and 36 patients with OD) were enrolled. Imatinib was in general well tolerated. The median number of cycles was 2.0 (range, 1 to 43 cycles). Five patients had an objective partial response, including three patients with GBM; all had 6 months of PFS. The 6-month PFS rate was 16% (95% CI, 8.0% to 34.0%) in GBM, 4.0% (95% CI, 0.3% to 15.0%) in OD, and 9% (95% CI, 2.0% to 25.0%) in A. The exposure to imatinib was significantly lower in patients using enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs. The presence of ABCG2 point mutations were not correlated with pharmacokinetic findings. No somatic activating mutations of KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor-A or -B were found., Conclusion: In the dose range of 600 to 1,000 mg/d, single-agent imatinib is well tolerated but has limited antitumor activity in patients with recurrent gliomas.

Many clinicians often do not feel comfortable with the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). This article reviews its implementation, showing the characteristics, advantages and limitations of this method in Phase I studies as an alternative to the classical 'Fibonacci' escalation schema. A two center, dose escalation phase I study of rViscumin was carried out. Thirty-seven patients were included at 14 different dose-levels (10 to 6400 ng/kg). The complete clinical results are presented elsewhere. A 2-step CRM design enables one to speed-up the study and most importantly to obtain an accurate estimate of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Different management issues related to a multicenter study are illustrated and we show how the method can go wrong when severe toxicity, or dose limiting toxicity (DLT), is not considered by the clinician as being sufficient to limit dose escalation (here a grade 3 asthenia related to the drug). This would have affected any dose finding methods. We believe that CRM is a good alternative to the standard method from both a statistical and a practical point of view but further methodological research is necessary to address the issues related to the composite nature of the endpoint.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has carried out clinical trials for nearly 30 years. During this time, several disease-oriented groups within the EORTC have been shaped by rapidly changing regulations in the area of drug development. Continual networking, dissemination of knowledge, and the establishment of specialized administrative units have allowed the EORTC to play a leading role in the development of improved treatment options for patients with brain tumors. Recently, the EORTC Brain Tumor Group and the EORTC New Drug Development Group have been integrated to create a network of institutions dedicated to screening new chemotherapy agents for the treatment of high-grade gliomas. Indeed, several new regimens and agents have already been investigated by this collaboration. Most notable are the recently closed study on temozolomide (Temodar [US], Temodal [international]; Schering-Plough Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ) in the adjuvant setting and in combination with radiotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, and the ongoing study on oral STI571 for the treatment of gliomas. Within the current networks, a well-defined strategy has been implemented to select specific and targeted agents for the drug screening process. By sharing their expertise with the EORTC networks, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, and radiologists can assist in the clinical development of potentially active agents in patients with brain tumors.

Background: XR5000 is a tricyclic carboxamide-based cytotoxic agent that binds to DNA by intercalation and stimulates DNA cleavage by inhibition of both topoisomerase I and II. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antitumoral activity and safety profile of XR5000 given as second-line chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer who had relapsed within 1 year after first-line chemotherapy with taxanes and platinum for advanced disease., Patients and Methods: Patients received XR5000 at the dose of 3010 mg/m(2) through a 120-h central venous infusion every 3 weeks. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC), version 2.0. An independent panel assessed response every two cycles according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Gehan's rule was used for sample size determination., Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled; one patient was ineligible because of prior melphalan single agent treatment. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 0 (eight patients), 1 (five patients), or 2 (two patients). The 15 eligible patients received 43 cycles of XR5000 (median 2, range 1-8). Hematological toxicity was mild with only one grade 3 anemia in one patient. Other drug-related toxicities never exceeded grade 3 and included fatigue (four patients), thrombosis (one patient), nausea (one patient), stomatitis (one patient) as well as dyspnea/cough (one patient). One patient who had refused further therapy and controls after the first cycle was not assessable for response evaluation. No objective responses were observed. Four patients experienced stable disease and 10 patients progressive disease. The median time to progression was 42 days (CI 95% 40; 54)., Conclusions: The complete lack of any objective response does not justify further evaluation of XR5000 in patients with advanced ovarian cancer using this dose and schedule, although the therapy was generally well tolerated.

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades. We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact. The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations. Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology. • Treatment optimisation studies can address current evidence gaps in oncology. • Trials of this type remain poorly characterised in the existing literature. • The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has decades of experience with conducting such studies. • An analysis of past EORTC trials offers insights into their key characteristics. • It yields an empirical framework for undertaking treatment optimisation studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]