Search

Summary: Advances in cancer biology and diagnostics have led to the recognition of a multitude of rare cancer subtypes, emphasizing the pressing need for strategies to accelerate drug development for patients with these cancers. This paper addresses the unique challenges of dose finding in trials that accrue small numbers of patients with rare cancers; strategies for dose optimization are proposed, in line with evolving approaches to dose determination in the age of the US Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders., Methods: After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved., Results: Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements., Conclusion: An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

In oncology clinical trials the guiding principle of model-based dose-finding designs for cytotoxic agents is to progress as fast as possible towards, and identify, the dose level most likely to be the MTD. Recent developments with non-cytotoxic agents have broadened the scope of early phase trials to include multiple objectives. The ultimate goal of dose-finding designs in our modern era is to collect the relevant information in the study for final RP2D determination. While some information is collected on dose levels below and in the vicinity of the MTD during the escalation (using conventional tools such as the Continual Reassessment Method for example), designs that include expansion cohorts or backfill patients effectively amplify the information collected on the lower dose levels. This is achieved by allocating patients to dose levels slightly differently during the study in order to take into account the possibility that "less (dose) might be more". The objective of this paper is to study the concept of amplification. Under the heading of controlled amplification we can include dose expansion cohorts and backfill patients among others. We make some general observations by defining these concepts more precisely and study a specific design that exploits the concept of controlled amplification., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of backfill in early phase dose-finding trials is a relatively recent practice. It consists of assigning patients to dose levels below the level where the study is at. The main reason for backfilling is to collect additional pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and response data, in order to assess whether a plateau may exist on the dose-efficacy curve. This is a possibility in oncology with molecularly targeted agents or immunotherapy. Recommending for further study a dose level lower than the maximum tolerated dose could be supported in such situations. How to best allocate backfill patients to dose levels is not yet established. In this paper we propose to randomise backfill patients below the dose level where the study is at. A refinement of this would be to stop backfilling to lower dose levels when these show insufficient efficacy compared to higher levels, starting at dose level 1 and repeating this process sequentially. At study completion, data from all patients (both backfill patients and dose-finding patients) is used to estimate the dose-response curve. The fit from a change point model is compared to the fit of a monotonic model to identify a potential plateau. Using simulations, we show that this approach can identify the plateau on the dose-response curve when such a plateau exists, allowing the recommendation of a dose level lower than the maximum tolerated dose for future studies. This contribution provides a methodological framework for backfilling, from the perspective of both design and analysis in early phase oncology trials., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aims of Phase 1 trials in oncology have broadened considerably from simply demonstrating that the agent/regimen of interest is well tolerated in a relatively heterogeneous patient population to addressing multiple objectives under the heading of early-phase trials and, if possible, obtaining reliable evidence regarding clinical activity to lead to drug approvals via the Accelerated Approval approach or Breakthrough Therapy designation in cases where the tumours are rare, prognosis is poor or where there might be an unmet therapeutic need. Constructing a Phase 1 design that can address multiple objectives within the context of a single trial is not simple. Randomisation can play an important role, but carrying out such randomisation according to the principles of equipoise is a significant challenge in the Phase 1 setting. If the emerging data are not sufficient to definitively address the aims early on, then a proper design can reduce biases, enhance interpretability, and maximise information so that the Phase 1 data can be more compelling. This article outlines objectives and design considerations that need to be adhered to in order to respect ethical and scientific principles required for research in human subjects in early phase clinical trials., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Cancer Research UK.)

Purpose: TRK inhibitors achieve marked tumor-agnostic efficacy in TRK fusion-positive cancers and consequently are now an established standard of care. Little is known, however, about the demographics, outcomes, response to alternative standard therapies, or genomic characteristics of TRK fusion-positive cancers., Experimental Design: Utilizing a center-wide screening program involving more than 26,000 prospectively sequenced patients, genomic and clinical data from all cases with TRK fusions were extracted. An integrated analysis was performed of genomic, therapeutic, and phenomic outcomes., Results: We identified 76 cases with confirmed TRK fusions (0.28% overall prevalence) involving 48 unique rearrangements and 17 cancer types. The presence of a TRK fusion was associated with depletion of concurrent oncogenic drivers ( P < 0.001) and lower tumor mutation burden ( P < 0.001), with the exception of colorectal cancer where TRK fusions cooccur with microsatellite instability (MSI-H). Longitudinal profiling in a subset of patients indicated that TRK fusions were present in all sampled timepoints in 82% (14/17) of cases. Progression-free survival on first-line therapy, excluding TRK inhibitors, administered for advanced disease was 9.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8-13.2]. The best overall response rate achieved with chemotherapy containing-regimens across all lines of therapy was 63% (95% CI, 41-81). Among 12 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors, a patient with MSI-H colorectal cancer had the only observed response., Conclusions: TRK fusion-positive cancers can respond to alternative standards of care, although efficacy of immunotherapy in the absence of other predictive biomarkers (MSI-H) appears limited. TRK fusions are present in tumors with simple genomes lacking in concurrent drivers that may partially explain the tumor-agnostic efficacy of TRK inhibitors., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Clinical and epidemiological studies of anticancer therapies increasingly seek to identify predictive biomarkers to obtain insights into variation in treatment benefit. For time to event endpoints, a predictive biomarker is typically assessed using the interaction between the biomarker and treatment in a proportional hazards model. Interactions are contrasts of summaries of outcomes and depend upon the choice of the outcome scale. In this paper, we investigate interaction contrasts under three scales - the natural logarithm of hazard ratio, the natural logarithm of survival probability, and survival probability at a pre-specified time. We illustrate that we can have a non-zero interaction on survival or logarithm of survival probability scales even when there is no interaction on the logarithm of hazard ratio scale. Since survival probabilities have clinically useful interpretation and are easier to convey to patients than hazard ratios, we recommend evaluating a predictive biomarker using survival probabilities. We provide empirical illustration of the three scales of interaction for evaluating a predictive biomarker using reconstructed data from a published melanoma study., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose We previously reported the phase I dose escalation study of buparlisib, a pan-class 1A PI3K inhibitor, combined with platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. The combination was well tolerated and promising preliminary efficacy was observed in PTEN deficient tumors. This phase I dose expansion study now evaluates buparlisib plus high dose carboplatin and paclitaxel in unselected patients with advanced solid tumors and buparlisib plus standard dose carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with PTEN deficient tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01297452). Methods There were two expansion cohorts: Cohort A received continuous buparlisib (100 mg/daily) orally plus high dose carboplatin AUC 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2; Cohort B treated patients with PTEN deficient tumors only and they received the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of continuous buparlisib (100 mg/daily) orally plus standard dose carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2. Both cohorts received chemotherapy intravenously on day 1 of the 21-day cycle with pegfilgrastim support. Primary endpoint in Cohort A was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of chemotherapy dose intensification with buparlisib and in Cohort B was to describe preliminary efficacy of the combination among patients with tumors harboring a PTEN mutation or homozygous deletion. Results 14 subjects were enrolled, 7 in Cohort A and 7 in Cohort B. Dose reductions were required in 5 (71%) and 3 (43%) patients, in cohort A and B respectively. Grade 3 adverse events in Cohort A included lymphopenia (n = 5 [71%]), hyperglycemia (n = 2, [29%]), diarrhea (n = 2, [29%]) and rash (n = 2, [29%]) and in cohort B included lymphopenia (n = 5 [71%]), hyperglycemia (n = 4 [57%]) and neutropenia (n = 2 [29%]. The mean number of cycles on protocol was 6. The overall objective response rate was 14% (2 /14). No objective responses were observed in the PTEN deficient cohort. Four out of 6 patients with stable disease (SD) had SD or better for ≥6 cycles, 2 of which had PTEN deficient tumors. Conclusion The addition of buparlisib to high dose carboplatin and paclitaxel was not tolerable. The combination did not reveal significant clinical activity amongst a small and heterogenous group of PTEN deficient tumors.

The landscape for early phase cancer clinical trials is changing dramatically because of the advent of targeted therapy. Increasingly, new drugs are designed to work against a target such as the presence of a specific tumor mutation. Because typically only a small proportion of cancer patients will possess the mutational target, but the mutation is present in many different cancers, a new class of basket trials is emerging, whereby the drug is tested simultaneously in different baskets, that is, subgroups of different tumor types. Investigators desire not only to test whether the drug works but also to determine which types of tumors are sensitive to the drug. A natural strategy is to conduct parallel trials, with the drug 's effectiveness being tested separately, using for example, the popular Simon two-stage design independently in each basket. The work presented is motivated by the premise that the efficiency of this strategy can be improved by assessing the homogeneity of the baskets ' response rates at an interim analysis and aggregating the baskets in the second stage if the results suggest the drug might be effective in all or most baskets. Via simulations, we assess the relative efficiencies of the two strategies. Because the operating characteristics depend on how many tumor types are sensitive to the drug, there is no uniformly efficient strategy. However, our investigation demonstrates that substantial efficiencies are possible if the drug works in most or all baskets, at the cost of modest losses of power if the drug works in only a single basket. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Personalization of therapy to target specific molecular pathways has been placed in the forefront of cancer research. Initial reports from clinical trials designed to select patients for appropriate treatment on the basis of tumor characteristics not only have generated considerable excitement but also have identified several challenges. These challenges include the overcoming of regulatory and logistic difficulties, identification of the best selection biomarkers and diagnostic platforms that can be applied in the clinical setting, definition of relevant outcomes in small preselected patient populations, and the design of methods that facilitate rapid enrollment and interpretation of clinical trials by aggregating data across histologically diverse malignancies with common genetic alterations. Furthermore, because our knowledge of the functional consequences of many genetic alterations lags, investigators and sponsors struggle with choosing between ideal clinical trial designs and more practical ones. These challenges are amplified when more than one biomarker is used to select patients for a combination of targeted agents. This review summarizes the current status and challenges of clinical trials in the genomic era and proposes ways to address these challenges.

Background: Dermatologic adverse events (AEs) can be key determinants of overall drug tolerability and of the maximum tolerated and recommended phase 2 doses in phase 1 trials. The authors present the largest dedicated analysis of dermatologic AEs on phase 1 trials to date., Methods: Data from a prospectively maintained database of patients with solid tumors who were enrolled onto Cancer Therapeutics Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored phase 1 trials of cytotoxic or molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) from 2000 to 2010 were analyzed. Cumulative incidence, site, and type of drug-related dermatologic AEs were described and compared. The timing of worst drug-related dermatologic AEs was summarized., Results: In total, 3517 patients with solid tumors and 6165 unique, drug-related dermatologic AEs were analyzed, including 1545 patients on MTA-only trials, 671 on cytotoxic-only trials, and 1392 on combination MTA and cytotoxic trials. Of 1270 patients who had drug-related dermatologic events, the timing of the worst AE was as follows: 743 (cycle 1), 303 (cycle 2), and 224 (cycle 3 or later). Although the cumulative incidence of grade ≥3 drug-related AEs increased to 2.4% by cycle 6, it was only 1.6% at the end of cycle 1. The cumulative incidence of drug-related AEs was highest in patients who received MTA-only therapy (P < .001) and differed by dose level (P < .001). In patients who received MTA-only therapy, drug-related AEs were most common for combination kinase inhibitor-containing therapy (P < .001)., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of drug-related dermatologic AEs occur after the traditional dose-limiting toxicity monitoring period of phase 1 clinical trials. Future designs should account for late toxicities., (© 2016 American Cancer Society.)

Objective: This study aimed to describe the implementation of preoperative geriatric assessment (GA) in patients undergoing major cancer surgery and to determine predictors of postoperative delirium., Background: Geriatric surgical patients have unique vulnerabilities and are at increased risk of developing postoperative delirium., Methods: Geriatricians at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk-stratify surgical patients with solid tumors, ages 75 years and older, using preoperative GA, which includes basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, IADLs), cognition (Mini-Cog test), history of falls, nutritional state, and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). The Geriatrics Service evaluates patients for postoperative delirium using the confusion assessment method. A retrospective review was performed. The associations between GA and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive value of GA for postoperative delirium, and a multivariate model was built., Results: In total, 416 patients who received preoperative evaluation by the Geriatrics Service between September 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, were included. Delirium occurred in 19% of patients. Patients with delirium had longer length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and greater likelihood of discharge to a rehabilitation facility (P < 0.001). Charlson Comorbidity Index score, history of falls, dependent on IADL, and abnormal Mini-Cog test results predicted postoperative delirium on univariate analysis. Developed using a stepwise selection method, a multivariate model to predict delirium is presented including Charlson Comorbidity Index score (P = 0.032), dependence IADLs (P = 0.011), and falls history (P = 0.056)., Conclusions: Preoperative GA is feasible and may achieve a better understanding of older patients' perioperative risks, including delirium.

Purpose: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase I (PI3K) inhibition sensitizes a wide range of cancer cell lines to platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy. This phase I study combines buparlisib, a pan-class 1A PI3K inhibitor, with two schedules of carboplatin and paclitaxel for patients with advanced solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01297452)., Methods: There were two regimens: Group 1 received carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), on day 1 of a 21-day cycle with pegfilgrastim support; Group 2 received carboplatin AUC 5 (day 1) and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15) on a 28-day cycle without growth factor support. In both groups, three dose levels of buparlisib were explored: 50, 80, and 100 mg/day. Primary endpoint was to identify recommended phase II doses of buparlisib in both groups., Results: Thirty subjects enrolled, 16 in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2. The DLTs were elevated alkaline phosphatase (n = 1) and uncomplicated neutropenia (n = 2). The median numbers of cycles were 5 (Group 1) and 6 (Group 2). The MTDs for buparlisib were 100 mg/day in Group 1 and 80 mg/day in Group 2. Among 25 patients with measurable disease, the confirmed objective response rate was 20% (one complete response, four partial responses). Among three patients with known loss of PTEN expression, all derived clinical benefit from treatment., Conclusion: The addition of buparlisib to carboplatin + paclitaxel was well tolerated, and preliminary activity was notable against tumors with loss of PTEN expression.

Purpose: We provide a comprehensive review of adaptive phase I clinical trials in oncology that used a statistical model to guide dose escalation to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). We describe the clinical setting, practical implications, and safety of such applications, with the aim of understanding how these designs work in practice., Methods: We identified 53 phase I trials published between January 2003 and September 2013 that used the continual reassessment method (CRM), CRM using escalation with overdose control, or time-to-event CRM for late-onset toxicities. Study characteristics, design parameters, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, DLT rate, patient-dose allocation, overdose, underdose, sample size, and trial duration were abstracted from each study. In addition, we examined all studies in terms of safety, and we outlined the reasons why escalations occur and under what circumstances., Results: On average, trials accrued 25 to 35 patients over a 2-year period and tested five dose levels. The average DLT rate was 18%, which is lower than in previous reports, whereas all levels above the MTD had an average DLT rate of 36%. On average, 39% of patients were treated at the MTD, and 74% were treated at either the MTD or an adjacent level (one level above or below)., Conclusion: This review of completed phase I studies confirms the safety and generalizability of model-guided, adaptive dose-escalation designs, and it provides an approach for using, interpreting, and understanding such designs to guide dose escalation in phase I trials., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Nomograms are widely used for cancer prognosis, primarily because of their ability to reduce statistical predictive models into a single numerical estimate of the probability of an event, such as death or recurrence, that is tailored to the profile of an individual patient. User-friendly graphical interfaces for generating these estimates facilitate the use of nomograms during clinical encounters to inform clinical decision making. However, the statistical underpinnings of these models require careful scrutiny, and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the point estimates requires attention. This guide provides a nonstatistical audience with a methodological approach for building, interpreting, and using nomograms to estimate cancer prognosis or other health outcomes.

The current mechanism for monitoring toxicity symptoms in cancer trials depends on a complex paper-based process. Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may be more efficient and accurate. An online PRO platform was created including a simple data entry interface, real-time report generation, and an alert system to e-mail clinicians when patients self-report serious toxicities. Feasibility assessment involving 180 chemotherapy patients demonstrated high levels of use at up to 40 follow-up clinic visits per patient over 16 months (85% of patients at any given visit), with high levels of patient and clinician acceptance and satisfaction (>95%). Alerts were used as the basis for delayed chemotherapy treatments, dose modifications, and scheduling changes. These results demonstrate that online patient-reporting is a feasible strategy for chemotherapy toxicity symptom monitoring, and may improve safety and satisfaction with care. Ongoing multi-center research will evaluate the impact of this approach on clinical and administrative outcomes.