Search

Early phase cancer prevention trials are designed to demonstrate safety, tolerability, feasibility, and signals of efficacy of preventive agents. Yet it is often observed that many trials fail to detect intervention effects. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analyses of recently completed early phase chemoprevention trials to gain in depth insight on the failure of detecting efficacy signals by comparing hypothesized effect sizes to the corresponding observed effect sizes.Single- or multi-arm efficacy chemoprevention trials conducted under the phase 0/I/II Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program of the Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI between 2003 and 2019 were evaluated. A total of 59 chemoprevention trials were reviewed. Twenty-four studies were efficacy or biomarker trials with complete information on hypothesized and observed effect sizes and included in this analysis. The majority of the trials (n = 18) were multi-arm randomized studies of which 15 trials were blinded. The pooled estimate of the observed to hypothesized effect size ratio was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.73, P < 0.001) based on a random-effects model. There were no significant differences detected in the ratio of observed to hypothesized effect sizes when conducting various subgroup analyses.The results demonstrate that the majority of early phase cancer chemoprevention trials have substantially smaller observed effect sizes than hypothesized effect sizes. Sample size calculations for early phase chemoprevention trials need to balance the potential detectable effect sizes with realistic and cost-effective accrual of study populations, thereby, detecting only intervention effects large enough to justify subsequent large-scale confirmatory trials., Prevention Relevance: The results of this systematic review and pooled analyses demonstrate that for early chemoprevention trials, there are substantial differences between hypothesized and observed effect sizes, regardless of study characteristics. The conduct of early phase chemoprevention trial requires careful planning of study design, primary endpoint, and sample size determination., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at markedly increased risk for colorectal cancer. It is being increasingly recognised that the immune system plays an essential role in LS tumour development, thus making an ideal target for cancer prevention. Our objective was to evaluate the safety, assess the activity and discover novel molecular pathways involved in the activity of naproxen as primary and secondary chemoprevention in patients with LS., Design: We conducted a Phase Ib, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial of two dose levels of naproxen sodium (440 and 220 mg) administered daily for 6 months to 80 participants with LS, and a co-clinical trial using a genetically engineered mouse model of LS and patient-derived organoids (PDOs)., Results: Overall, the total number of adverse events was not different across treatment arms with excellent tolerance of the intervention. The level of prostaglandin E2 in the colorectal mucosa was significantly decreased after treatment with naproxen when compared with placebo. Naproxen activated different resident immune cell types without any increase in lymphoid cellularity, and changed the expression patterns of the intestinal crypt towards epithelial differentiation and stem cell regulation. Naproxen demonstrated robust chemopreventive activity in a mouse co-clinical trial and gene expression profiles induced by naproxen in humans showed perfect discrimination of mice specimens with LS and PDOs treated with naproxen and control., Conclusions: Naproxen is a promising strategy for immune interception in LS. We have discovered naproxen-induced gene expression profiles for their potential use as predictive biomarkers of drug activity., Trial Registration Number: gov Identifier: NCT02052908., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS has a consulting role with Janssen Research and Development, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. IW has an advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, Asuragen, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health and MSD, has received speaker fees from Medscape, MSD, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer and received research support from Genentech, Oncoplex, HTG Molecular, DepArray, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medimmune, Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Iovance, 4D, Novartis, and Akoya. SL and EV are co-principal investigators in an NIH/NCI U01 award with co-investigators employed by Nouscom, s.r.l. EV has a consulting and advisory role with Janssen Research and Development and Recursion Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Individuals at high risk for cancer, including those already diagnosed with premalignant lesions, can potentially benefit from chemopreventive interventions to reduce cancer risk. However, uptake and acceptability have been hindered due to the risk of systemic toxicity and other adverse effects. Locally delivered chemopreventive agents, where direct action on the primary organ may limit systemic toxicity, are emerging as an option for high-risk individuals. While a number of clinical trials support the development of chemopreventive agents, it is crucial to understand the factors and barriers that influence their acceptability and use. We conducted 36 focus groups with 198 individuals at average and high risk of breast/ovarian, gynecologic, and head/neck/oral and lung cancers to examine the perceptions and acceptability of chemopreventive agents. Participants' willingness to use chemopreventive agents was influenced by several factors, including perceived risk of cancer, skepticism around prevention, previous knowledge of chemopreventive agents, support from trusted sources of health information, participation in other cancer-related risk-reduction activities, previous experience with similar modalities, cost, regimen, side effects, and perceived effectiveness of the preventive intervention. Our findings indicate that individuals may be more receptive to locally delivered chemopreventive agents if they perceive themselves to be at high risk for cancer and are given the necessary information regarding regimen and side effects to make an informed decision. Clinical trials that collect additional patient-centered data including side effects and how these interventions fit into an individual's lifestyle are imperative to improve uptake of chemopreventive agents., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in men and women in the United States. Cigarette smoking is the main risk factor. Former smokers are at a substantially increased risk of developing lung cancer compared with lifetime never smokers. Chemoprevention refers to the use of specific agents to reverse, suppress, or prevent the process of carcinogenesis. This article reviews the major agents that have been studied for chemoprevention., Methods: Articles of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention trials were reviewed and summarized to obtain recommendations., Results: None of the phase 3 trials with the agents β-carotene, retinol, 13-cis-retinoic acid, α-tocopherol, N-acetylcysteine, acetylsalicylic acid, or selenium has demonstrated beneficial and reproducible results. To facilitate the evaluation of promising agents and to lessen the need for a large sample size, extensive time commitment, and expense, surrogate end point biomarker trials are being conducted to assist in identifying the most promising agents for later-stage chemoprevention trials. With the understanding of important cellular signaling pathways and the expansion of potentially important targets, agents (many of which target inflammation and the arachidonic acid pathway) are being developed and tested which may prevent or reverse lung carcinogenesis., Conclusions: By integrating biologic knowledge, additional early-phase trials can be performed in a reasonable time frame. The future of lung cancer chemoprevention should entail the evaluation of single agents or combinations that target various pathways while working toward identification and validation of intermediate end points.

Preclinical models and data from clinical trials suggest that cancer is a preventable disease. However, demonstration of a preventive effect requires large phase III clinical trials of long duration and involves many thousands of participants. The decision to proceed with phase III studies therefore must be informed by robust efficacy and safety data. This requires a systematic review of all available preclinical, epidemiological, and clinical data, along with a mechanistic understanding of the biology of the disease under study. In this review we identify the issues that are critical to decision-making prior to embarking on late phase prevention clinical trials and provide a framework for making such decisions.

This article endeavors to clarify the current requirements and status of regulatory approval for chemoprevention (risk reduction) drugs and discusses possible improvements to the regulatory pathway for chemoprevention. Covering a wide range of topics in as much depth as space allows, this report is written in a style to facilitate the understanding of nonscientists and to serve as a framework for informing the directions of experts engaged more deeply with this issue. Key topics we cover here are as follows: a history of definitive cancer chemoprevention trials and their influence on the evolution of regulatory assessments; a brief review of the long-standing success of pharmacologic risk reduction of cardiovascular diseases and its relevance to approval for cancer risk reduction drugs; the use and limitations of biomarkers for developing and the approval of cancer risk reduction drugs; the identification of individuals at a high(er) risk for cancer and who are appropriate candidates for risk reduction drugs; business models that should incentivize pharmaceutical industry investment in cancer risk reduction; a summary of scientific and institutional barriers to development of cancer risk reduction drugs; and a summary of major recommendations that should help facilitate the pathway to regulatory approval for pharmacologic cancer risk reduction drugs.

SR13668, an orally active Akt pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability. Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single, 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. On the basis of existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol oral solution was defined as the reference formulation. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-∞)) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size. Participants (n = 20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. AUC(0-∞) values were highest in the fed state (range = 122-439 ng/mL × hours) and were statistically significantly different across formulations (P = 0.007), with Solutol HS15 providing the highest bioavailability. SR13668 time to peak plasma concentration (3 hours; range, 2-6 hours) and half-life were (11.2 ± 3.1 hours) were not formulation-dependent. Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development.

Background: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Cigarette smoking is the main risk factor. Former smokers are at a substantially increased risk for lung cancer compared with lifetime never-smokers. Chemoprevention is the use of specific agents to reverse, suppress, or prevent the process of carcinogenesis. This article reviews the major agents that have been studied for chemoprevention., Methods: Articles of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention trials were reviewed and summarized to obtain recommendations., Results: None of the phase III trials with the agents beta carotene, retinol, 13-cis-retinoic acid, alpha-tocopherol, N-acetylcysteine, or acetylsalicylic acid has demonstrated beneficial, reproducible results. For facilitating the evaluation of promising agents and for lessening the need for a large sample size, extensive time commitment, and expense, focus is now turning toward the assessment of surrogate end point biomarkers for lung carcinogenesis. With the understanding of important cellular signaling pathways, various inhibitors that may prevent or reverse lung carcinogenesis are being developed., Conclusions: By integrating biological knowledge, more trials can be performed in a reasonable time frame. The future of lung cancer chemoprevention should entail the evaluation of single agents or combinations that target various pathways while working toward identification and validation of intermediate end points.

Introduction: A phase I, open-label, multiple dose, dose-escalation clinical study was conducted to assess the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose, and potential chemopreventive effect of myo-inositol in smokers with bronchial dysplasia., Materials and Methods: Smokers between 40 and 74 years of age with >or= 30 pack-years of smoking history and one or more sites of bronchial dysplasia were enrolled. A dose escalation study ranging from 12 to 30 g/d of myo-inositol for a month was first conducted in 16 subjects to determine the maximum tolerated dose. Ten new subjects were then enrolled to take the maximum tolerated dose for 3 months. The potential chemopreventive effect of myo-inositol was estimated by repeat autofluorescence bronchoscopy and biopsy., Results: The maximum tolerated dose was found to be 18 g/d. Side effects, when present, were mild and mainly gastrointestinal in nature. Using the regression rate of the placebo subjects from a recently completed clinical trial with the same inclusion/exclusion criteria as a comparison, a significant increase in the rate of regression of preexisting dysplastic lesions was observed (91% versus 48%; P = 0.014). A statistically significant reduction in the systolic and diastolic blood pressures by an average of 10 mm Hg was observed after taking 18 g/d of myo-inositol for a month or more., Conclusion: myo-Inositol in a daily dose of 18 g p.o. for 3 months is safe and well tolerated. The potential chemopreventive effect as well as other health benefits such as reduction in blood pressure should be investigated further.

Epidemiologic observations and preclinical experimental investigations suggest that the prevention or reversal of precancers should be an effective strategy in humans to control cancer. Although "proof of principle" has been established in humans, the results of randomized trials have not been confirmatory in most cases. Toxicity in normal or near-normal populations has also been greater than anticipated. We examine the problems associated with testing chemoprevention agents in humans and offer a process and guidelines that may better inform the logical development of this relatively young clinical field.

BackgroundA previously carried out randomized phase IIb, placebo-controlled trial of 1 year of inhaled budesonide, which was nested in a lung cancer screening study, showed that non-solid and partially solid lung nodules detected by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), and not immediately suspicious for lung cancer, tended to regress. Because some of these nodules may be slow-growing adenocarcinoma precursors, we evaluated long-term outcomes (after stopping the 1-year intervention) by annual LDCT.Patients and methodsWe analyzed the evolution of target and non-target trial nodules detected by LDCT in the budesonide and placebo arms up to 5 years after randomization. The numbers and characteristics of lung cancers diagnosed during follow-up were also analyzed.ResultsThe mean maximum diameter of non-solid nodules reduced significantly (from 5.03 mm at baseline to 2.61 mm after 5 years) in the budesonide arm; there was no significant size change in the placebo arm. The mean diameter of partially solid lesions also decreased significantly, but only by 0.69 mm. The size of solid nodules did not change. Neither the number of new lesions nor the number of lung cancers differed in the two arms.ConclusionsInhaled budesonide given for 1 year significantly decreased the size of non-solid nodules detected by screening LDCT after 5 years. This is of potential importance since some of these nodules may progress slowly to adenocarcinoma. However, further studies are required to assess clinical implications.Clinical trial numberNCT01540552.