Search

Supplementary Tables S1-S3

Treatment of myeloma has benefited from the introduction of more effective and better tolerated agents, improvements in supportive care, better understanding of disease biology, revision of diagnostic criteria, and new sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication and management. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) in response to therapy is one of these tools, as longer progression-free survival (PFS) is seen consistently among patients who have achieved MRD negativity. Current therapies lead to unprecedented frequency and depth of response, and next-generation flow and sequencing methods to measure MRD in bone marrow are in use and being developed with sensitivities in the range of 10−5 to 10−6 cells. These technologies may be combined with functional imaging to detect MRD outside of bone marrow. Moreover, immune profiling methods are being developed to better understand the immune environment in myeloma and response to immunomodulatory agents while methods for molecular profiling of myeloma cells and circulating DNA in blood are also emerging. With the continued development and standardization of these methodologies, MRD has high potential for use in gaining new drug approvals in myeloma. The FDA has outlined two pathways by which MRD could be qualified as a surrogate endpoint for clinical studies directed at obtaining accelerated approval for new myeloma drugs. Most importantly, better understanding of MRD should also contribute to better treatment monitoring. Potentially, MRD status could be used as a prognostic factor for making treatment decisions and for informing timing of therapeutic interventions. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 3980–93. ©2017 AACR.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) is a leader within the agency in scientific outreach activities and regulatory science research. On the basis of analysis of scientific workshops, internal meetings, and publications, the OCE identified nine scientific priority areas and one cross-cutting area of high interest for collaboration with external researchers. This article describes the process for identifying these scientific interest areas and highlights funded and unfunded opportunities for external researchers to work with FDA staff on critical regulatory science challenges.

1) Munshi Figures, 2) MRD Negativity Associated With Longer Progression-free Survival And Overall Survival In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Active Clinical Trials in Myeloma Using Minimal Residual Disease Assessment as Exploratory or Secondary Endpoints

The Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act requires an assessment of molecular targets relevant to pediatric cancer. Due to the biological complexity, candidate molecular targets have been primarily evaluated based on single features such as the presence of mutations or deregulated expression. As the understanding of tumor biology evolves, the relevance of certain molecular targets may need to be assessed at isoform and/or mutation variant level to optimize tailored therapeutic interventions.

The seventh multi-stakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells for children and adolescents with cancer. The development of CAR T-cells for patients with haematological malignancies, especially B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (BCP-ALL), has been spectacular. However, currently, there are scientific, clinical and logistical challenges for use of CAR T-cells in BCP-ALL and other paediatric malignancies, particularly in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), lymphomas and solid tumours. The aims of the Forum were to summarise the current landscape of CAR T-cell therapy development in paediatrics, too identify current challenges and future directions, with consideration of other immune effector modalities and ascertain the best strategies to accelerate their development and availability to children. Although the effect is of limited duration in about half of the patients, anti-CD19 CAR T-cells produce high response rates in relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL and this has highlighted previously unknown mechanisms of relapse. CAR T-cell treatment as first- or second-line therapy could also potentially benefit patients whose disease has high-risk features associated with relapse and failure of conventional therapies. Identifying patients with very early and early relapse in whom CAR T-cell therapy may replace haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and be definitive therapy versus those in whom it provides a more effective bridge to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a very high priority. Development of approaches to improve persistence, either by improving T cell fitness or using more humanised/fully humanised products and co-targeting of multiple antigens to prevent antigen escape, could potentially further optimise therapy. Many differences exist between paediatric B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) and BCP-ALL. In view of the very small patient numbers with relapsed lymphoma, careful prioritisation is needed to evaluate CAR T-cells in children with Burkitt lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma and other NHL subtypes. Combination trials of alternative targets to CD19 (CD20 or CD22) should also be explored as a priority to improve efficacy in this population. Development of CD30 CAR T-cell immunotherapy strategies in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma will likely be most efficiently accomplished by joint paediatric and adult trials. CAR T-cell approaches are early in development for AML and T-ALL, given the unique challenges of successful immunotherapy actualisation in these diseases. At this time, CD33 and CD123 appear to be the most universal targets in AML and CD7 in T-ALL. The results of ongoing or planned first-in-human studies are required to facilitate further understanding. There are promising early results in solid tumours, particularly with GD2 targeting cell therapies in neuroblastoma and central nervous system gliomas that represent significant unmet clinical needs. Further understanding of biology is critical to success. The comparative benefits of autologous versus allogeneic CAR T-cells, T-cells engineered with T cell receptors T-cells engineered with T cell receptor fusion constructs, CAR Natural Killer (NK)-cell products, bispecific T-cell engager antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates require evaluation in paediatric malignancies. Early and proactive academia and multi-company engagement are mandatory to advance cellular immunotherapies in paediatric oncology. Regulatory advice should be sought very early in the design and preparation of clinical trials of innovative medicines, for which regulatory approval may ultimately be sought. Aligning strategic, scientific, regulatory, health technology and funding requirements from the inception of a clinical trial is especially important as these are very expensive therapies. The model for drug development for cell therapy in paediatric oncology could also involve a ‘later stage handoff’ to industry after early development in academic hands. Finally, and very importantly, strategies must evolve to ensure appropriate ease of access for children who need and could potentially benefit from these therapies.

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of ‘real-world data’ supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children.

PURPOSE Multiple FGFR inhibitors are currently in clinical trials enrolling adults with different solid tumors, while very few enroll pediatric patients. We determined the types and frequency of FGFR alterations ( FGFR1-4) in pediatric cancers to inform future clinical trial design. METHODS Tumors with FGFR alterations were identified from two large cohorts of pediatric solid tumors subjected to targeted DNA sequencing: The Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Profile Study (n = 888) and the multi-institution GAIN/iCAT2 (Genomic Assessment Improves Novel Therapy) Study (n = 571). Data from the combined patient population of 1,395 cases (64 patients were enrolled in both studies) were reviewed and cases in which an FGFR alteration was identified by OncoPanel sequencing were further assessed. RESULTS We identified 41 patients with tumors harboring an oncogenic FGFR alteration. Median age at diagnosis was 8 years (range, 6 months-26 years). Diagnoses included 11 rhabdomyosarcomas, nine low-grade gliomas, and 17 other tumor types. Alterations included gain-of-function sequence variants (n = 19), amplifications (n = 10), oncogenic fusions ( FGFR3:: TACC3 [n = 3], FGFR1:: TACC1 [n = 1], FGFR1:: EBF2 [n = 1], FGFR1:: CLIP2 [n = 1], and FGFR2:: CTNNA3 [n = 1]), pathogenic-leaning variants of uncertain significance (n = 4), and amplification in combination with a pathogenic-leaning variant of uncertain significance (n = 1). Two novel FGFR1 fusions in two different patients were identified in this cohort, one of whom showed a response to an FGFR inhibitor. CONCLUSION In summary, activating FGFR alterations were found in approximately 3% (41/1,395) of pediatric solid tumors, identifying a population of children with cancer who may be eligible and good candidates for trials evaluating FGFR-targeted therapy. Importantly, the genomic and clinical data from this study can help inform drug development in accordance with the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity for Children Act.

The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) is a leader within the agency in scientific outreach activities and regulatory science research. On the basis of analysis of scientific workshops, internal meetings, and publications, the OCE identified nine scientific priority areas and one cross-cutting area of high interest for collaboration with external researchers. This article describes the process for identifying these scientific interest areas and highlights funded and unfunded opportunities for external researchers to work with FDA staff on critical regulatory science challenges.

On April 10, 2020, the FDA approved selumetinib (KOSELUGO, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with neurofibromatosis type 1 who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Approval was based on demonstration of a durable overall response rate per Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis criteria and supported by observed clinical improvements in plexiform neurofibroma–related symptoms and functional impairments in 50 pediatric patients with inoperable plexiform neurofibromas in a single-arm, multicenter trial. The overall reponse rate per NCI investigator assessment was 66% (95% confidence interval, 51–79) with at least 12 months of follow-up. The median duration of response was not reached, and 82% of responding patients experienced duration of response ≥12 months. Clinical outcome assessment endpoints provided supportive efficacy data. Risks of selumetinib are consistent with MAPK (MEK) inhibitor class effects, including ocular, cardiac, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic toxicities. Safety was assessed across a pooled database of 74 pediatric patients with plexiform neurofibromas and supported by adult and pediatric selumetinib clinical trial data in cancer indications. The benefit–risk assessment for selumetinib in patients with inoperable plexiform neurofibromas was considered favorable.

Background Single patient Investigational New Drug (IND) applications are one mechanism through which experimental therapies are accessed for children with cancer. The landscape of use, outcomes, and toxicity from single patient INDs remains unknown in pediatric oncology. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all single patient INDs requested and prescribed at a single institution between 1/1/2007 and 5/1/2019. We report aggregate data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on single patient IND applications over the final two years of the study (2017–2019). We report an overview of all IND applications, as well as clinical descriptions of patients, treatments, outcomes, and toxicity. Results Over the 2‐year period, the FDA approved all 171 submitted single patient IND requests for pediatric oncology. We identified 56 requests from our center during the 12‐year study period, and all were approved (median time from FDA submission to approval: 1 day (range 0–12)). 71% of requests were based on disease histology. Lack of pediatric clinical trial (65%) was the most common reason for use. 48 approved requests were ultimately administered. The median duration of treatment was 84 days (range: 4–1590), with 3 patients remaining on treatment at time of analysis. Only 7% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Three‐year overall survival was 50% (95% CI, 35–64). Conclusions Single patient INDs in pediatric oncology were universally approved in our national and single‐center analysis. In our cohort, single patient INDs were primarily utilized based on disease histology, rather than genomics, for agents that lacked a clinical trial., Single patient Investigational New Drug (IND) applications in pediatric oncology are universally approved in a timely fashion in our analysis. Single patient IND therapy is pursued for a range of reasons, with few patients discontinuing therapy due to toxicity.

The fifth multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focussed on epigenetic modifier therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. As most mutations in paediatric malignancies influence chromatin-associated proteins or transcription and paediatric cancers are driven by developmental gene expression programs, targeting epigenetic mechanisms is predicted to be a very important therapeutic approach in paediatric cancer. The Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act FDARA amendments to section 505B of the FDC the biology is multifaceted and new targets are frequently emerging. Targeting epigenetic mechanisms in paediatric malignancy has in most circumstances yet to reach or extend beyond clinical proof of concept, as many targets do not yet have available investigational drugs developed. Eight classes of medicinal products were discussed and prioritised based on the existing level of science to support early evaluation in children: inhibitors of menin, DOT1L, EZH2, EED, BET, PRMT5 and LSD1 and a retinoic acid receptor alpha agonist. Menin inhibitors should be moved rapidly into paediatric development, in view of their biological rationale, strong preclinical activity and ability to fulfil an unmet clinical need. A combination approach is critical for successful utilisation of any epigenetic modifiers (e.g. EZH2 and EED) and exploration of the optimum combination(s) should be supported by preclinical research and, where possible, molecular biomarker validation in advance of clinical translation. A follow-up multistakeholder meeting focussing on BET inhibitors will be held to define how to prioritise the multiple compounds in clinical development that could be evaluated in children with cancer. As epigenetic modifiers are relatively early in development in paediatrics, there is a clear opportunity to shape the landscape of therapies targeting the epigenome in order that efficient and optimum plans for their evaluation in children and adolescents are developed in a timely manner.

Purpose: The current standard-of-care for front-line therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) results in short-term and long-term toxicity, but still approximately 40% of children relapse. Therefore, there is a major need to accelerate the evaluation of innovative medicines, yet drug development continues to be adult-focused. Furthermore, the large number of competing agents in rare patient populations requires coordinated prioritisation, within the global regulatory framework and cooperative group initiatives. Methods: The fourth multi-stakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on AML in children and adolescents. Results: CD123 is a high priority target and the paediatric development should be accelerated as a proof-of-concept. Efforts must be coordinated, however, as there are a limited number of studies that can be delivered. Studies of FLT3 inhibitors in agreed paediatric investigation plans present challenges to be completed because they require enrolment of a larger number of patients than actually exist. A consensus was developed by industry and academia of optimised clinical trials. For AML with rare mutations that are more frequent in adolescents than in children, adult trials should enrol adolescents and when scientifically justified, efficacy data could be extrapolated. Methodologies and definitions of minimal residual disease need to be standardised internationally and validated as a new response criterion. Industry supported, academic sponsored platform trials could identify products to be further developed. The Leukaemia and Lymphoma Society PedAL/EUpAL initiative has the potential to be a major advance in the field. Conclusion: These initiatives continue to accelerate drug development for children with AML and ultimately improve clinical outcomes.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common treatment-related adverse event that negatively impacts the quality of life of cancer patients. During pediatric drug development, extrapolation of efficacy from adult to pediatric populations is a pathway that can minimize the exposure of children to unnecessary clinical trials, improve efficiency, and increase the likelihood of success in obtaining a pediatric indication. The acceptability of the use of extrapolation depends on a series of evidence-based assumptions regarding the similarity of disease, response to intervention, and exposure-response relationships between adult and pediatric patients. This study evaluated publicly available summaries of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drugs approved for CINV to assess the feasibility of extrapolation for future development programs. Extracted data included trial design, emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, primary end points, participant enrollment criteria, and antiemetic pharmacokinetics. Adult and pediatric clinical trial designs for assessment of efficacy and safety shared key design elements. Antiemetic drugs found to be efficacious in adults were also efficacious in pediatric patients. Systemic drug concentrations at approved doses were similar for ondansetron, granisetron, and aprepitant, but an exposure-response analysis of palonosetron in children suggested that higher palonosetron systemic exposure is necessary for the prevention of CINV in the pediatric population. For 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs, efficacy in adults predicts efficacy in children, supporting the extrapolation of effectiveness of an antiemetic product in children from adequate and well-controlled studies in adult patients with CINV.

Our research supported the dose selection recommendations for adolescents in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance on Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. The FDA Guidance states that for drugs administered as a flat dose in adults and data showing no clinically meaningful effect of body size on drug exposure and toxicity in adults, a minimum body weight threshold may need to be defined to prevent adolescents who have a lower body weight from exceeding adult exposures. Our review of adult population pharmacokinetic analyses of new molecular entities approved for oncology between January 2015 and March 2021 suggested that 40 kg (the approximate median body weight of a 12-year-old) is generally the lower end of the body weight range that has no clinically relevant effect on drug pharmacokinetics or safety. The minimum body weight threshold and selection of an appropriate dose for adolescents in relevant adult oncology clinical trials should ultimately be determined based on available data on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of the investigational drug with consideration of body size effect on drug exposure, toxicity, and efficacy data (if available), the therapeutic index of the drug, and dose- and exposure-response relationships in adults.

The measurement and analysis of patient-reported outcomes is important in cancer clinical trials. This commentary reports advances and challenges from presentations at the 2019 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation (AAADV) Workshop Patient-Reported Outcomes Session.

1563 Background: Many investigational drugs start clinical testing to evaluate potential therapeutic benefits for oncology patients, but few eventually receive FDA approval. Moreover, only a small number is evaluated in pediatric populations, potentially contributing to the paucity of new approved drugs for young patients with cancer. Limited information is available on the development pipeline of investigational drugs, including the range of drug types entering clinical trials, trial phases at which development stalls, or rate of regulatory approval. To inform current clinical development efforts, we characterized the development and outcomes for a comprehensive sample of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that started clinical testing worldwide in 2010-2015. Methods: We performed a longitudinal study using AdisInsight, a commercial database of global pharmaceutical research and development. This is a comprehensive database of drug development activity, which collects and curates data from trial registries, conference proceedings, journal publications, and press releases. Using these data, we identified all NMEs starting their first clinical trial for an oncology indication in 2010-2015. We followed each NME from the start of its first phase I trial to the end of 2020, and identified all associated trials, final development status, and FDA deliberations. We classified trials as pediatric-eligible if patients aged < 18 years were eligible for participation. We used the Drugs@FDA website to identify all FDA actions, including marketing approvals and requests for pediatric trials under pediatric programs (i.e. BPCA requests or PREA requirements). Results: A total of 572 NMEs started initial phase I clinical trials in 2010-2015. Among these, the most studied classes were small molecules (N, %: 316, 55%), antibodies (148, 26%), and antibody-drug conjugates (44, 8%). Overall, the NMEs were studied in 6,141 clinical trials by the end of 2020, with a median of 3 trials per NME. The highest pre-approval development phase reached by an NME was phase I for 325 (57%), phase II for 153 (27%), and phase III for 94 (16%). Only 39 NMEs (7%) were approved by the FDA by the end of 2020. Among approved NMEs, the median time (range) from start of first phase I trial to date of first approval was 6 (3-10) years. Among all NMEs, only 67 (12%) were tested in pediatric-eligible trials by the end of 2020, and 5 (< 1%) were approved for use in selected pediatric populations. Three of these had been subject to BPCA requests, and all had PREA requirements waived. Conclusions: More efficient clinical development strategies are needed to accelerate the production of new cancer therapies, especially for children. Analyses such as this one should be conducted regularly to help identify areas in need of innovation and to assess the potential impact of regulatory initiatives (e.g. the RACE act, effective since August 2020).

1529 Background: Expanded Access is a regulatory mechanism that enables patients with a life-threatening condition or serious disease to receive treatment with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial when no comparable or satisfactory alternative options are available. FDA has decades of experience with expanded access, but little has been reported about its use in pediatric cancer patients. Methods: FDA’s central electronic database was queried for single-patient investigational new drug (spIND) applications submitted to the Office of Oncologic Diseases between January 2015 through December 2020. Data collection included IND receipt date, IND type/status, drug name, and patient demographics. Duplicate or exempt INDs, those cancelled by the physician-sponsor before initiating therapy, and those requested for indications that occur almost exclusively in adults (e.g. lung cancer) or were missing patient age were excluded. Results: Of 2,901 unique spINDs granted, 534 (18%) were for patients less than 18 years of age. The pediatric population was 57% male, median age 6.0 years (range 0.1 to 17); race/ethnicity were reported in

While considerable efforts and progress in our understanding of the long-term toxicities of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy in children with cancer have been made over the last 5 decades, there continues to be a wide gap in our knowledge of the long-term health impact of most novel targeted and immunotherapy agents. To address this gap, ACCELERATE, a multi-stakeholder collaboration of clinical and translational academics, regulators from the EMA and FDA, patient/family advocates and members spanning small biotechnology through to large pharmaceutical companies have initiated the development of an international long-term follow-up data registry to collect this important information prospectively. Providing critical safety data on the long-term use of these approved and investigational therapies in children will support the regulatory requirements and labeling information. It will also provide the necessary insight to help guide physicians and families on the appropriateness of a targeted or immune therapy for their child and inform survivorship planning.

The European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration recently published a common commentary document on paediatric oncology drug development, building on the call for simultaneous submissions of paediatric investigation plans and initial pediatric study plans. The objective of this document is to guide deliberations and permit focused discussions at the monthly paediatric cluster calls, allowing early regulatory coordination of global development plans. The differences in regulations related to timeline are not considered posing a barrier in that regard.

Pediatric patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can help inform the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapeutics by quantifying symptom and functional outcomes from the patient’s perspective. This study assessed use of PROs in commercial pediatric oncology trials submitted to the FDA for regulatory review. FDA databases were searched to identify pediatric oncology product applications approved between 1997 and 2020. Sponsor-submitted documents were reviewed to determine whether PRO data were collected, which instruments were used, and the quality of collected data (ie, sample size, completion rates, and use of fit-for-purpose instruments). The role of PROs in each trial (endpoint hierarchy) was also recorded in addition to whether any PRO endpoints were included in product labeling. We reviewed 17 pediatric oncology applications, 4 of which included PRO data: denosumab, tisagenlecleucel, larotrectinib, and selumetinib. In these 4 instances, PROs served as exploratory endpoints and were not incorporated in product labeling. Trials that collected PRO data were phase II or phase I/II single-arm studies with sample sizes of 28 to 88 patients. Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were characterized using clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) without additional patient self-report. PROs were infrequently used in pediatric cancer registration trials. When PROs were used, PRO data were limited by lack of a clear research objective and corresponding prospective statistical analysis plan. Contemporary PRO symptom libraries, such as the National Cancer Institute’s Pediatric PRO-CTCAE, may provide an opportunity to better evaluate the occurrence and impact of symptomatic AEs, from the patient’s perspective, in pediatric oncology trials.

Background Pediatric anticancer drug development has numerous challenges. The Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) were passed to address pediatric drug development deficiencies in general. Until recently, the requirements for pediatric evaluation of most oncology products developed for adult cancers have been waived. Because children typically do not have the same type of cancers, which occur commonly in adults, or the indication or drug had been granted an orphan designation, PREA therefore has had no impact. Pediatric studies for labeling updates are largely done through BPCA by a written request (WR) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because the cancers that occur in pediatric and adult populations do not share the same etiology or natural history, there are limited opportunities to extrapolate adult efficacy and safety to the pediatric population. The characteristics of individual pediatric studies included in WRs have varied greatly over time. Procedure In this study, we searched WRs that were issued by the FDA since 2001. We found 40 such requests issued for oncology drugs and biologics, which had been accepted by sponsors. Results Clinical trials included in 23 of the WRs have been concluded, 19 have resulted in exclusivity, and three drugs that were studied have been approved for use in pediatric populations. Herein, we present the spectrum of WRs from a regulatory, study design, dosing, formulation, analysis plan, evidentiary standard of efficacy, and safety perspective. Conclusions This provides information on requests issued in the past nearly 20 years and studies that are completed. As WRs have provided the only regulatory mechanism to assure pediatric cancer drug development, this can potentially provide insight on how pediatric cancer drug development may change in the future.

The third multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum organised by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in children and adolescents. As immune checkpoint inhibitors, both as monotherapy and in combinations have shown impressive success in some adult malignancies and early phase trials in children of single agent checkpoint inhibitors have now been completed, it seemed an appropriate time to consider opportunities for paediatric studies of checkpoint inhibitors used in combination. Among paediatric patients, early clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors used as monotherapy have demonstrated a high rate of activity, including complete responses, in Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutant paediatric tumours. Activity has been very limited, however, in more common malignancies of childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, apart from tumour mutational burden, no other predictive biomarker for monotherapy activity in paediatric tumours has been identified. Based on these observations, there is collective agreement that there is no scientific rationale for children to be enrolled in new monotherapy trials of additional checkpoint inhibitors with the same mechanism of action of agents already studied (e.g. anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 anti-CTLA-4) unless additional scientific knowledge supporting a different approach becomes available. This shared perspective, based on scientific evidence and supported by paediatric oncology cooperative groups, should inform companies on whether a paediatric development plan is justified. This could then be proposed to regulators through the available regulatory tools. Generally, an academic-industry consensus on the scientific merits of a proposal before submission of a paediatric investigational plan would be of great benefit to determine which studies have the highest probability of generating new insights. There is already a rationale for the evaluation of combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other agents in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutated tumours in view of the activity shown as single agents. In paediatric tumours where no single agent activity has been observed in multiple clinical trials of anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents as monotherapy, combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other treatment modalities should be explored when a scientific rationale indicates that they could be efficacious in paediatric cancers and not because these combinations are being evaluated in adults. Immunotherapy in the form of engineered proteins (e.g. monoclonal antibodies and T cell engaging agents) and cellular products (e.g. CAR T cells) has great therapeutic potential for benefit in paediatric cancer. The major challenge for developing checkpoint inhibitors for paediatric cancers is the lack of neoantigens (based on mutations) and corresponding antigen-specific T cells. Progress critically depends on understanding the immune macroenvironment and microenvironment and the ability of the adaptive immune system to recognise paediatric cancers in the absence of high neoantigen burden. Future clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors in children need to build upon strong biological hypotheses that take into account the distinctive immunobiology of childhood cancers in comparison to that of checkpoint inhibitor responsive adult cancers. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

On May 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved dalteparin sodium for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) to reduce the risk of recurrence in pediatric patients 1 month of age and older. Approval was primarily based on FDA review of a single-arm trial evaluating dalteparin administered subcutaneous twice daily in 38 pediatric patients with symptomatic VTE. Efficacy was based on the achievement of therapeutic plasma anti-Xa levels. The FDA concluded that dalteparin has efficacy and acceptable safety for pediatric patients.

Changes in the regulatory environment affecting pediatric cancer drug development in the United States and the European Union provide unprecedented opportunity to advance the concept of precision medicine to children with cancer. Increasing evidence suggests that new drugs and biologic products directed at molecular targets presumed to be etiologically associated with many adult cancers may well provide therapeutic options for selected subsets of children with cancer despite their histologic and biologic differences. Regulatory requirements for early evaluation of appropriate new drugs for children based on their molecular mechanism of action, rather than the specific clinical indications for which they are developed and/or approved, will shorten the unacceptable time lag between first-in-human and first-in-children studies. The relative scarcity of pediatric patients eligible for biomarker-directed studies and the ever-expanding compendium of new targeted agents mandate rational, science-based decision-making in selecting and prioritizing appropriate drugs to study early in development. A critical component of the evidence base in such decision-making includes preclinical testing of relevant drugs in pediatric tumor-specific in vitro and in vivo models. Established preclinical testing programs with academic investigator–industry collaborations are actively engaged in such activities. International collaboration is required to address the resource constraints and increasing number of potential products to be tested in a timely, efficient, nonduplicative, and cost-effective manner.

The 2019 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development Workshop assembled a panel of experts for an in-depth discussion session to present “novel therapeutic interventions early in the disease trajectory.” The panel reviewed the limitations of evaluating investigational cancer therapeutics solely in advanced metastatic and relapsed/refractory disease settings, and recommended strategies for drug evaluation earlier in the disease course, including in the first line in combination with standard chemotherapy, and in the maintenance and neoadjuvant disease settings. Advantages of earlier drug evaluation were discussed, including expanding the population of evaluable patients, earlier response assessment via surrogate endpoints, earlier clinical benefit in the disease course, tailoring of therapies based on response, and furthering our understanding of biomarker-driven therapies.

Oncology products developed for adult cancers often receive full waivers of pediatric studies. This analysis retrospectively identified products with potential pediatric development opportunities despite a full waiver. Initial pediatric study plans submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from 2012 to 2016 for oncology products with plans to request full waivers of pediatric studies were reviewed to determine if a scientific rationale existed for pediatric evaluation based on the molecular mechanism of action (MOA), clinical experience, nonclinical evidence, or published genome sequencing data. Of the 98 oncology products reviewed, pediatric studies were eventually conducted in 55 (56%) despite having a waiver, 33 additional (34%) products were considered to have a rationale for pediatric evaluation but were not studied, and 10 (10%) products had no current evidence to support pediatric development. Conducting pediatric studies based on molecular MOA, rather than indication, provides opportunities to evaluate products earlier and accelerate pediatric oncology drug development.

Purpose Children have historically been excluded from first-in-human studies of promising new cancer drugs and later phase adult clinical trials. Delays in evaluation may result in off-label use without dosing information as the only access to new drugs. A multistakeholder workshop was convened in May 2016 by ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research to identify opportunities for when it would be scientifically appropriate to expand trial eligibility to include children younger than age 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials. Methods This group convened experts from academia, government, and industry to review barriers to enrolling children and adolescents in oncology clinical trials. We evaluated the historical context, published literature, regulatory considerations, and myriad risks and benefits associated with lowering the age of enrollment on oncology clinical trials. Results We conclude that many of the historical concerns about including children early in oncology clinical trials do not apply in the current scientific and clinical environment of pediatric oncology and drug development; we provide specific recommendations for how the inclusion of children in early-phase investigational cancer drug trials might be accomplished. Automatic inclusion of pediatric patients is appropriate in early-phase trials that assess dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics in a variety of tumor types and later phase trials that assess efficacy in a specific disease that spans adult and pediatric populations. Conclusion Including children in appropriately designed adult clinical oncology trials is feasible and can be done in a way that enhances their access to these agents without compromising safety or development strategies.

Cancer remains the leading cause of death from disease in children. Historically, in contrast to their adult counterparts, the causes of pediatric malignancies have remained largely unknown, with most pediatric cancers displaying low mutational burdens. Research related to molecular genetics in pediatric cancers is advancing our understanding of potential drivers of tumorigenesis and opening new opportunities for targeted therapies. One such area is fusion oncoproteins, which are a product of chromosomal rearrangements resulting in the fusion of different genes. They have been identified as oncogenic drivers in several sarcomas and leukemias. Continued advancement in the understanding of the biology of fusion oncoproteins will contribute to the discovery and development of new therapies for childhood cancers. Here we review the current scientific knowledge on fusion oncoproteins, focusing on pediatric sarcomas and hematologic cancers, and highlight the challenges and current efforts in developing drugs to target fusion oncoproteins.

It is well recognized that cancer drug development for children and adolescents has many challenges, from biological and societal to economic. Pediatric cancer consists of a diverse group of rare diseases, and the relatively small population of children with multiple, disparate tumor types across various age groups presents a significant challenge for drug development programs as compared to oncology drug development programs for adults. Due to the different types of cancers, limited opportunities exist for extrapolation of efficacy from adult cancer indications to children. Thus, innovative study designs including Bayesian statistical approaches should be considered. A Bayesian approach can be a flexible tool to formally leverage prior knowledge of adult or external controls in pediatric cancer trials. In this article, we provide in a case example of how Bayesian approaches can be used to design, monitor, and analyze pediatric trials. Particularly, Bayesian sequential monitoring can be useful to monitor pediatric trial results as data accumulate. In addition, designing a pediatric trial with both skeptical and enthusiastic priors with Bayesian sequential monitoring can be an efficient mechanism for early trial cessation for both efficacy and futility. The interpretation of efficacy using a Bayesian approach is based on posterior probability and is intuitive and interpretable for patients, parents and prescribers given limited data.

The identification of preventive interventions that are safe and effective for cisplatin-induced ototoxicity is important, especially in children because hearing loss can impair speech-language acquisition development. Previous randomised trials assessed systemic drugs such as amifostine, sodium diethyldithiocarbamate or disulfiram, and sodium thiosulfate. Amifostine, sodium diethyldithiocarbamate, and disulfiram did not show hearing preservation. Paediatric trials assessing sodium thiosulfate showed efficacy in terms of hearing protection. The SIOPEL 6 trial consisted solely of patients with localised hepatoblastoma and no effects on survival were shown. In the ACCL0431 trial, which included heterogeneous patients, a post-hoc analysis showed significantly worse overall survival among patients who had disseminated disease receiving sodium thiosulfate than among controls, but not among those with localised disease. Intratympanically administered drugs have mainly been assessed in adults and include N-acetylcysteine and dexamethasone. Inconsistent effects of these drugs were identified but these studies were limited by design, small sample size, and statistical approach. Future studies of systemic drugs will need to consider the measurement of disease outcomes through study design and sample size, and ototoxicity endpoints should be harmonised to enhance comparability between trials.

The efficacy of asparaginase in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is dependent on depletion of asparagine, an essential amino acid for ALL cells. The target level of plasma asparaginase activity to achieve asparagine depletion has been between 0.05–0.4 IU/mL. COG AALL07P4 examined the asparaginase activity and plasma and CSF asparagine concentration of pegaspargase when given intravenously in the treatment of NCI high risk ALL. Matched plasma asparaginase/asparagine levels of the clearance of 54 doses of pegaspargase given in induction or consolidation demonstrated that all patients who had a plasma asparaginase level >0.02 IU/mL had undetectable plasma asparagine. No difference was observed in CSF asparagine levels associated with matched plasma asparaginase levels of 0.02–0.05 vs. 0.05–0.22 IU/mL (p=0.25). Our data suggest that a plasma asparaginase activity level of 0.02 IU/mL can effectively deplete plasma asparagine. The data also indicate that the 95%CI for plasma asparagine depletion after a pegaspargase dose is 22–29 days.

This article highlights key findings from the "Comprehensive Cancer Care for Children and Their Families" March 2015 joint workshop by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American Cancer Society. This initiative convened more than 100 family members, clinician investigators, advocates, and members of the public to discuss emerging evidence and care models and to determine the next steps for optimizing quality-of-life outcomes and well-being for children and families during pediatric cancer treatment, after treatment completion, and across the life spectrum. Participants affirmed the triple aim of pediatric oncology that strives for every child with cancer to be cured; provides high-quality palliative and psychosocial supportive, restorative, and rehabilitative care to children and families throughout the illness course and survivorship; and assures receipt of high-quality end-of-life care for patients with advancing disease. Workshop outcomes emphasized the need for new pediatric cancer drug development and identified critical opportunities to prioritize palliative care and psychosocial support as an integral part of pediatric cancer research and treatment, including the necessity for adequately resourcing these supportive services to minimize suffering and distress, effectively address quality-of-life needs for children and families at all stages of illness, and mitigate the long-term health risks associated with childhood cancer and its treatment. Next steps include dismantling existing silos and enhancing collaboration between clinical investigators, disease-directed specialists, and supportive care services; expanding the use of patient-reported and parent-reported outcomes; effectively integrating palliative and psychosocial care; and clinical communication skills development. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:398-407. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The 2018 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development (AAADV) Workshop assembled a panel of experts for an in-depth discussion session to present “Challenges with Novel Clinical Trial Designs.” This panel offered assessments of the challenges faced by industry, the FDA, investigators, institutional review boards, and patients. The panel focused on master protocols, which include umbrella trials, platform trials, and basket trials. Umbrella trials and platform trials share many commonalities, whereas basket trials are more distinct. Umbrella and platform trials are generally designed with multiple arms where patients of the same histology or other unifying characteristics are enrolled into different arms and multiple investigational agents are evaluated in a single protocol. In contrast, basket studies generally enroll patients with different tumor types based on the presence of a specific mutation or biomarker regardless of histology; these trials may include expansion cohorts. These novel designs offer the promise of expedited drug assessment and approval, but they also place new challenges on all the stakeholders involved in the drug development process. Only by identifying the challenges of these complex, innovative clinical trial designs and highlighting challenges from each perspective can we begin to address these challenges. The 2018 AAADV Workshop convened a panel of experts from relevant disciplines to highlight the challenges that are created by master protocols, and, where appropriate, offer strategies to address these challenges.

It is well appreciated that the number of anticancer drugs approved for use in children is a fraction of the number approved for use in cancers that occur in adults. We address this fact by summarizing the relevant U.S. legislation that provides the framework for the evaluation and approval of drugs used to treat children with cancer. In total, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 38 new drug applications for pediatric oncology indications, 12 of which were new molecular entities. FDA continues to collaborate with multistakeholders regarding the development of products intended for pediatric cancer and encourages the submission of marketing applications.

Importance Multi-institutional collaborative studies that include large patient populations for the management of retinoblastoma with histopathological risk factors could provide important information for patient management. Objective To evaluate the implementation of a strategy for the management of nonmetastatic unilateral retinoblastoma in children based on standardized diagnostic and treatment criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants This single-arm prospective study applied a strategy based on a single-center experience. The setting was a multicenter study in Latin America (Grupo de America Latina de Oncologia Pediatrica [GALOP]). Participants were children with nonmetastatic unilateral retinoblastoma (staged with the International Retinoblastoma Staging System). The study opened on July 1, 2008, and closed on December 31, 2014. Follow-up was updated until June 30, 2017. Interventions Stage 0 patients (without enucleation) were given conservative therapy without a protocol. Stage I patients (with enucleation and no residual tumor) were divided into a high-risk group (retrolaminar invasion and/or scleral invasion) and a low-risk group (all remaining patients). High-risk children received adjuvant chemotherapy with 4 alternating cycles of regimen 1 (cyclophosphamide [65 mg/kg/d] [plus sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulfonate], idarubicin hydrochloride [10 mg/m2/d], and vincristine sulfate [0.05 mg/kg/d]) and 4 cycles of regimen 2 (carboplatin [500 mg/m2/d, days 1 and 2] and etoposide [100 mg/m2/d, days 1-3]). Low-risk children did not receive adjuvant therapy. Children with buphthalmia received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for a total of 8 cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures Probability of event-free survival (extraocular relapse and death from any cause were considered events). Results Among 187 children registered in the study, 175 were evaluable (92 [52.5%] female; median age, 22 months; age range, 3-100 months). Forty-two were stage 0 children, 84 were stage I low-risk children, and 42 were stage I high-risk children; there were 7 children in the buphthalmia group. With a median follow-up of 46 months, the 3-year probability of event-free survival was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), and the probability of overall survival was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Stage 0 patients had no events, stage I low-risk patients had 1 event (orbital relapse treated with second-line therapy), stage I high-risk patients had 2 events (1 central nervous system relapse and 1 death from sepsis), and the buphthalmia group had 1 event (orbital relapse, followed by central nervous relapse and death). Conclusions and Relevance Adjuvant therapy may be effective for high-risk unilateral retinoblastoma but is toxic, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for buphthalmus appears feasible.

Although outcomes for children with cancer have significantly improved over the past 40 years, there has been little progress in the treatment of some pediatric cancers, particularly when advanced. Additionally, clinical trial options and availability are often insufficient. Improved genomic and immunologic understanding of pediatric cancers, combined with innovative clinical trial designs, may provide an enhanced opportunity to study childhood cancers. Master protocols, which incorporate the use of precision medicine approaches, coupled with the ability to quickly assess the safety and effectiveness of new therapies, have the potential to accelerate early-phase clinical testing of novel therapeutics and which may result in more rapid approval of new drugs for children with cancer. Designing and conducting master protocols for children requires addressing similar principles and requirements as traditional adult oncology trials, but there are also unique considerations for master protocols conducted in children with cancer. The purpose of this paper is to define the key challenges and opportunities associated with this approach in order to ensure that master protocols can be adapted to benefit children and adolescents and ensure that adequate data are captured to advance, in parallel, the clinical development of investigational agents for children with cancer.

Purpose: The number of persons who have successfully completed treatment for a cancer diagnosed during childhood and who have entered adulthood is increasing over time, and former patients will become aging citizens. Methods: Ten years ago, an expert panel met in Erice, Italy, to produce a set of principles concerning the cure and care of survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer. The result was the Erice Statement (Haupt et al. Eur J Cancer 43(12):1778–80, 2007) that was translated into nine languages. Ten years on, it was timely to review, and possibly revise, the Erice Statement in view of the changes in paediatric oncology and the number and results of international follow-up studies conducted during the intervening years. Results: The long-term goal of the cure and care of a child with cancer is that he/she becomes a resilient and autonomous adult with optimal health-related quality of life, accepted in society at the same level as his/her age peers. “Cure” refers to cure from the original cancer, regardless of any potential for, or presence of, remaining disabilities or side effects of treatment. The care of a child with cancer should include complete and honest information for parents and the child. Conclusions and implication for cancer survivors: Some members of the previous expert panel, as well as new invited experts, met again in Erice to review the Erice Statement, producing a revised version including update and integration of each of the ten points. In addition, a declaration has been prepared, by the Childhood Cancer International Survivors Network in Dublin on October 2016 (see Annex 1).

The FDA has co-sponsored three workshops to address minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as well as an FDA-NCI roundtable symposium on MRD detection and its use as a response biomarker in Multiple Myeloma (MM). As clinical outcomes in MM continue to improve with the introduction of new therapeutics, consideration of biomarkers and their development as validated surrogate endpoints that can be used in the place of traditional clinical trial endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) will be fundamental to expeditious drug development. This article will describe the FDA drug approval process, the regulatory framework through which a biomarker can be used as a surrogate endpoint for drug approval, and how MRD detection in MM fits within this context. In parallel, this article will also describe the FDA current device clearance process with emphasis on the analytical development as it might apply to an in vitro diagnostic assay for the detection of MRD in MM. It is anticipated that this Special Issue may possibly represent how MRD might serve as a drug development tool in hematological malignancies.

Despite the enormously important and gratifying advances in cancer treatment outcomes for children with cancer, cancer remains the biggest cause of death from disease in children. Because the etiology and biology of cancers that occur in children differ dramatically from those that occur in adults, the immediate extrapolation of efficacy and safety of new cancer drugs to childhood cancer indications is not possible. We discuss factors that will play key roles in guiding pediatric oncologists as they select lines of research to pursue in their quest for more effective treatments for children with cancer.