Search

Background: Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences., Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings., Results: In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values., Conclusions: Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R.S.: Nothing to declare. M.V.H.: Nothing to declare. J.B.: Nothing to declare. C.M.B.: Nothing to declare. J.J.C.: Nothing to declare. A.D.: I have received institutional research funding from Janssen and IQVIA, speaker honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic, and am founder, shareholder and employee of Medical Data Works B.V. E.A.E.: Nothing to declare. A.F.: Nothing to declare. A.G.: Nothing to declare. M.A.H.: My research is supported by funding from NIH, the US Veterans Administration, and PCORI. I am a consultant for Cytel, data science adviser for ProPublica, and member of the scientific advisory board of ADIA Lab. None of these interests or relationships have influenced my contribution to this paper. F.H.: I report that a party related to me is employed by Janssen-Cilag GmbH as principal data scientist. P.O.: I have performed consultancy work for AAA, Bayer, Curium, MSD, Janssen and have received research grants from Bayer. P.S.: I have had advisory relationships with Merck-Serono, Servier, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp in the last three years. H.M.V.: Nothing to declare. M.W.: I have received research grants from Quercis and Versameb, and honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting from Bayer, Curevac, Medac, Novartis, Novocure, Orbus, Philogen, Roche and Sandoz. R.W.: Nothing to declare. D.L.: I am member of the EMA Management Board, member of the EMA Health Care Professionals Working Party and of the EMA Healthcare Professionals Policy Officers’ Group, and co-chair of the EMA Cancer Medicines Forum. W.T.V.D.G.: I have performed advisory work for SpringWorks, PTC Therapeutics, Agenus and received research funding from Eli Lilly, all fees going to the institute., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess primary care providers' (PCPs') experiences with, perceptions of, and desired role in personalized medicine, with a focus on cancer., Design: Qualitative study involving focus groups., Setting: Urban and rural interprofessional primary care team practices in Alberta and Ontario., Participants: Fifty-one PCPs., Methods: Semistructured focus groups were conducted and audiorecorded. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using techniques informed by grounded theory including coding, interpretations of patterns in the data, and constant comparison., Main Findings: Five focus groups with the 51 participants were conducted; 2 took place in Alberta and 3 in Ontario. Primary care providers described limited experience with personalized medicine, citing breast cancer and prenatal care as main areas of involvement. They expressed concern over their lack of knowledge, in some circumstances relying on personal experiences to inform their attitudes and practice. Participants anticipated an inevitable role in personalized medicine primarily because patients seek and trust their advice; however, there was underlying concern about the magnitude of information and pace of discovery in this area, particularly in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Increased knowledge, closer ties to genetics specialists, and relevant, reliable personalized medicine resources accessible at the point of care were reported as important for successful implementation of personalized medicine., Conclusion: Primary care providers are prepared to discuss personalized medicine, but they require better resources. Models of care that support a more meaningful relationship between PCPs and genetics specialists should be pursued. Continuing education strategies need to address knowledge gaps including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, a relatively new area provoking PCP concern. Primary care providers should be mindful of using personal experiences to guide care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Progression-free survival (PFS) is an end-point in an increasing number of cancer clinical trials, informing both regulatory bodies and clinical practice. PFS is utilised both as a surrogate end-point for overall survival and as a primary trial end-point in itself. Understanding the history of clinical trial definitions of progression provides some context for how PFS may be applied to clinical practice as well as some of its limitations that need to be considered in patient care decisions. This commentary reviews recent drug approval for anti-cancer agents in solid tumours, reviews various concepts of progression in clinical trials and outlines some future directions for patient care and clinical trial research using progression free survival., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Disease-free survival (DFS) is an end-point for an increasing number of clinical trials in adjuvant and curative intent cancer treatment informing both regulatory bodies and clinical practice. DFS is seen both as a surrogate end-point and as an end-point in itself in clinical trials. Understanding the history of DFS, and some of the assumptions, limitations, and vulnerabilities for studies designed with this primary end-point are required. This commentary reviews recent drug approvals for anti-cancer agents in solid tumours in the adjuvant and curative settings, and considers the meaning of DFS from the perspectives of clinical trials and clinical practice., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of early (phase I and II) studies of combinations of molecular targeted agents during their 2012 meeting. The task force defined necessary non-clinical data, such as evidence of additive or synergistic effects in multiple molecularly credentialed and validated models, and appropriate pharmacodynamic marker development. A robust hypothesis was considered critical while non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies were also considered valuable. Clinical trials should include clear objectives that will prove or disprove the hypothesis. Predictive biomarkers/classifiers should be explored in phase I studies, rather than used to select patients. Trial design should be efficient and flexible rather than based on a strict progression from phase I to II to III; researchers could consider phase I studies with an expansion cohort, Phase I/II designs or phase II studies with a safety run in. Pharmacokinetics are recommended when interactions or overlapping toxicity is expected. Pharmacodynamic evaluations should be considered especially in a subset of patients closest to the recommended dose; an attempt should be made to validate surrogate tissues to enable inclusion for all patients. Schedule and or dose should be formally explored for e.g. with a randomised or an adaptive design. Data and knowledge sharing was strongly recommended, including the creation of formal or informal consortia of laboratories with individual expertise in pathway or target based models, collaboration between companies to ensure that agents which are 'best in class' are combined, and the development of databases which will be able to inform the development of future recommendations/guidelines., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There has been a significant shift within oncology drug development away from empiric screening of cytotoxic compounds to the era of genomics and molecularly targeted agents. The drug development process is evolving with greater emphasis on proof-of-mechanism studies in both preclinical and early clinical development. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Task Force, established as a forum for academic and pharmaceutical leaders to discuss methodological issues in targeted anticancer therapy development, met in March 2010 to review what were the minimal data required to make appropriate decisions about moving new targeted cancer agents from late preclinical development into phase I and from phase I into phase II trials. A number of specific questions were posed, and responses to each developed through survey, literature review and discussion at the face to face meeting of the MDICT Task Force. Consensus emerged around the necessity to demonstrate proof-of-mechanism and obtain information on key pharmacokinetic aspects of drug behaviour in late preclinical and early clinical trials. However, controversy remains on the extent of in vivo anti-tumour efficacy required to support clinical development of targeted agents. A systematic review of the data in this area would be informative. Further, while objective response in phase I trials may be a favourable signal about the potential activity of a new agent, debate exists around the weight that should be placed on the observation of stable disease or functional imaging changes in driving drug development decisions in the absence of observing either responses or convincing pharmacodynamic data in phase I. MDICT made a number of recommendations that may aid in future development of targeted agents., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Clinical benefit (CB) was first successfully used as an end-point in 1997 in the pivotal study of gemcitabine in advanced pancreas cancer. In the trial by Burris et al. CB was a composite measure of pain, performance status and weight. Here we describe how CB has been used in oncology trials since that time., Methods: We performed an electronic search (www.jco.org) for reports of all clinical trials (phase I, II and III) published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology 1997-2008 citing 'clinical benefit'. Eligible trials were those reporting clinical benefit as an end-point. Details related to study methodology, sponsorship and end-points were abstracted. Use of CB was classified as patient centred if it referred to improvement in the clinical parameters used by Burris et al. or in other disease-related symptoms. CB was classified as tumour centred if it related to objective tumour criteria for partial/complete response and/or stable disease. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise findings and the chi-square test was used to compare proportions., Results: Seventy-one trials reporting CB as an end-point were identified: 37 in breast, 8 in pancreas and 26 in other cancers. The definition of CB was patient centred in 20 trials (28%) and tumour centred in 51 trials (72%). Only 20% (14/71) of trials (including all 8 pancreas studies) used the original Burris definition. Among the 71 trials reporting clinical benefit, in only 31 (44%) cases was the end-point defined as a primary or secondary study objective. Trials with a patient-centred definition of CB were considerably more likely to do so than trials with a tumour-centred definition (19/20, 95% versus 12/51, 24%, p<0.0001). Study variables associated with the use of a tumour-centred definition include: disease site (breast 35/37, 95%; all others 16/34, 47%, p<0.001) and intervention (hormone or targeted agent 38/40, 95%; chemotherapy 13/31, 42%, p<0.001). There has been a steady increase in the number of trials using CB as an end-point; in the second half of the study period the number of trials increased from 17 to 54, along with the proportion of trials with a tumour-centred definition (10/17, 59% to 41/54, 76%, p=0.09)., Conclusions: Despite its initial definition, clinical benefit is often used to describe objective tumour findings. Clinical trials should use end-points in a consistent manner to enable clear communication between investigators, clinicians and patients about the benefit of novel therapies.

Purpose: Because the appropriate design and end points for phase II evaluation of targeted anticancer agents are unclear, we undertook a review of recent reports of phase II trials of targeted agents to determine the types of designs used, the planned end points, the outcomes, and the relationship between trial outcomes and regulatory approval., Methods: We retrieved reports of single-agent phase II trials in six solid tumors for 19 targeted drugs. For each, we abstracted data regarding planned design and actual results. Response rates were examined for any relationship to eventual success of the agents, as determined by US Food and Drug Administration approval for at least one indication., Results: Eighty-nine trials were identified. Objective response was the primary or coprimary end point in the majority of trials (61 of 89 trials). Fourteen reports were of randomized studies generally evaluating different doses of agents, not as controlled experiments. Enrichment for target expression was uncommon. Objective responses were seen in 38 trials; in 19 trials, response rates were more than 10%, and in eight, they were more than 20%. Agents with high response rates tended to have high nonprogression rates; renal cell carcinoma was the exception to this. Higher overall response rates were predictive of regulatory approval in the tumor types reviewed (P = .005)., Conclusion: In practice, phase II design for targeted agents is similar to that for cytotoxics. Objective response seems to be a useful end point for screening new targeted agents because, in our review, its observation predicted for eventual success. Improvements in design are recommended, as is more frequent inclusion of biological questions as part of phase II trials.

Oncology drug development has seen a paradigm shift in the past decade from traditional cytotoxic agents to molecular targeted therapies. Given the different mechanisms and toxicities of these agents, drug development methodology may also require novel approaches. To address emerging issues in oncology drug development the 'Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies' (MDICT) task force was established to provide a forum for academic leaders involved in cancer drug development to discuss methodological issues inherent to the study of targeted anticancer therapy. At the inaugural MDICT meeting in 2006, discussion focused on the most appropriate primary endpoints for first-in-man phase I studies of targeted anticancer agents and organisational issues of such studies. This report summarises the scientific reviews and discussions as well as the recommendations regarding phase I trial design formulated by the MDICT task force.

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of phase II studies for molecular targeted agents during their 2007 meeting. The task force recommended that multinomial endpoints and designs should be considered for phase II studies of targeted agents, that both single arm as well as randomised designs remain appropriate in certain settings, and that further assessment of novel endpoints (tumour growth kinetic assessment, biomarker or functional imaging) and designs (randomised discontinuation or Bayesian adaptive design) be encouraged. The MDICT cautioned on the use of small randomised trials which have a number of statistical pitfalls and dangers and strongly encouraged the complete reporting, including negative trials, in the scientific literature.

Purpose: MG98 is a second generation phosphorothioate antisense oligodeoxynucleotide which is a highly specific inhibitor of translation of the mRNA for human DNA MeTase I (DNMT 1). This phase I study examined the toxicity and pharmacologic profile of MG98 administered as a continuous 21-day intravenous infusion every 4 weeks., Patients and Methods: Fourteen patients with solid cancers received a total of 25 cycles of MG98 at doses ranging from 40 to 240 mg/m2/day. Steady-state concentrations of MG98 were measured as were several pharmacodynamic assessments including mRNA of the target gene, DNMT1, in PBMC. In addition, other potential surrogate markers of drug effects were explored, including hemoglobin F, Vimentin and GADD45., Results: Dose limiting effects were drug-related reversible transaminase elevation and fatigue seen at doses of 240, 200 and 160 mg/m2/day. The dose level of 80 mg/m2/day was felt to be safe and tolerable when delivered on this schedule. No evidence of antitumor activity was observed. Although pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that at the higher dose levels, mean Css values of MG98 were approximately 10-fold times the IC50 values associated with target inhibition in vitro, the extent of MG98 penetration into target tumors in this trial was not determined. No consistent, dose-related changes in correlative markers including DNMT1 mRNA, hemoglobin F, Vimentin and GADD45, were observed., Conclusions: This schedule of MG98 given as a 21-day continuous intravenous infusion every 4 weeks was poorly tolerated in the highest doses; therefore, further disease-site specific evaluation of the efficacy of this agent will utilize a more favorable, intermittent dosing schedule. Pharmacodynamic evaluations undertaken in an attempt to explore and validate the biological mechanisms of MG98 did not show dose-related effects.