Neurovascular Emergencies in Pregnancy

M. Dias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-199406000-00011

1994-06-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

Lehmann,J.,Krepper,D.,Pe,M.,Kulis,D.,Giesinger,J. M.,Sztankay,M.,Kern,S.,Fitzsimmons,D.,Holzner,B.,on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084935

IF: 3.006

2024-09-12

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background There are different modes and ways to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. However, there is little systematic information on how often different modes of assessment (MOA) are used in cancer clinical trials and how exactly assessments are conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to gain an understanding of the MOA and data management of PROs in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the reporting quality thereof. Methods and analysis This scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant trials will be identified via their indexed publications. We will search PubMed for RCTs conducted in cancer populations that evaluate a biomedical treatment with a PRO endpoint. Trials with publications published between January 2019 and November 2023 will be included. Two independent reviewers will review the references for both the abstract and full-text screening. We will extract data from the publications from a trial and the trial protocol if a protocol can be traced. Data will be summarised at the trial level. We will focus on a descriptive analysis of the MOA of PROs and on the relative frequencies of the different MOA. We will also evaluate the quality of reporting for the relevant SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines that refer to the assessment of PROs in trials. Due to the scoping nature of our review, we will not perform a dedicated quality assessment of all trials. Ethics and dissemination The proposed review is based on secondary, published data. Hence, no ethics review is necessary. The review is part of an ongoing project on the use of electronic data capture methods in cancer clinical trials. The findings from the review will support the project and contribute to synthesising guidance to ultimately improve the (electronic) measurement of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

medicine, general & internal
Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Robbe Saesen,Denis Lacombe,Isabelle Huys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.012

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

R. J. Anderson,J. Babson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(89)90104-4

IF: 6.1

1989-08-01

Biochemical Pharmacology

Abstract:
Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Amanda L. King,Jason E. Levine,Elizabeth Vera,Yuti Gandhi,Elaine Novakovich,Theresa Yu,Sefanit Berhanu,Ciara Locke,Kaelyn Julmeus,Tito Mendoza,Terri S. Armstrong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1302

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Background: There has been a shift in the clinical trial landscape toward early-phase studies where data from well-designed and pivotal phase I/II trials is leading to accelerated drug approval. Our goal was to develop a standardized approach to the measurement and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early-phase trials to improve assessment of tolerability, address noted barriers to inclusion, and enhance patient-provider communication to inform treatment decisions and ultimately improve outcomes. Methods: The Office of Patient Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe) was established in 2022 within the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with the mission to advance understanding of the clinical benefit and tolerability of cancer therapies by integrating patient-centered approaches into CCR clinical trials by fostering education and collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation of regulatory/consortia guidelines related to use of core constructs, assessment frequency, and hypothesis-driven objectives and analysis plans through protocol template, development of data capture, email-based alerts and data visualization for clinical providers was developed and standardized templates for protocol language, research staff education, tools for workflow, and tracking implemented. Results: The OPCORe protocol template includes measurement of 3 constructs, including tolerability, clinical benefit and disease-specific impact, as well as anchors of meaningful change. Core symptomatic toxicities are measured to inform understanding across trials with agent/class-specific symptomatic toxicities added to assure relevance. Baseline and standardized weekly electronic capture of tolerability during early cycles with alerts to clinical research staff if moderate-severe toxicities reported helps facilitate patient check-ins. Repeat PROs assessments in later cycles are expanded to include disease-specific assessments and align with disease evaluation to further inform clinical impact. To date, we have collaborated with 7 research groups and developed approaches for first-in-human, phase I, and phase II studies with trial start-up and data collection in process. Conclusion: The value of including PROs in cancer trials is increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, patients, and advocates to advance understanding of the clinical benefit & tolerability of emerging therapies. Standardization and incorporation of PROs in earlier phase trials may enable PROs to be optimized, improve later phase trial design, and help inform health policy, support drug approval, and promote shared decision making between providers and patients to inform treatment decisions. Citation Format: Amanda L. King, Jason E. Levine, Elizabeth Vera, Yuti Gandhi, Elaine Novakovich, Theresa Yu, Sefanit Berhanu, Ciara Locke, Kaelyn Julmeus, Tito Mendoza, Terri S. Armstrong. Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1302.

oncology
A Field Test of Major Value Frameworks in Chemotherapy of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma—To Know, Then to Measure

Yuan Zhang,Xu Liu,Ying-Qin Li,Ling-Long Tang,Lei Chen,Jun Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01076

IF: 4.7

2020-08-12

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have independently developed their own frameworks to assess the benefits of different cancer treatment options, which have significant implications in health science and policy. We aimed to compare these frameworks in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Methods: We identified all randomized controlled trials of systemic chemotherapies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma until April 5th, 2020. Trials were eligible if significant differences favoring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported. Two assessors independently scored the trials and the final scores were determined by consensus.Results: Fifteen trials were included in the analysis. Five different toxicity grading criteria were applied to the 15 trials. Ten (66.7%) trials did not report grade 1–2 toxicities and eight (53.3%) did not report late toxicities. The number of acute toxicities reported was strikingly different (17 vs. 8) in two trials using the same regimen. All trials met the ESMO criteria for a high level of benefit. However, significant variations in ASCO scores between trials were observed (mean [standard deviation]: 38.9 [20.0]).Conclusions: The underreporting and inconsistent reporting of toxicities would significantly impair the assessment of value using any framework. Moreover, there is a concern that the ASCO framework generated highly inconsistent scoring for treatments that met the ESMO criteria for a high level of benefit. The anomalies identified in the frameworks function would be helpful in their future improvement.

oncology
Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials

Derrick H W Siu,Frank P Y Lin,Doah Cho,Sarah J Lord,Gillian Z Heller,R John Simes,Chee Khoon Lee,Derrick H.W. Siu,Frank P.Y. Lin,Sarah J. Lord,Gillian Z. Heller,R. John Simes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/po.23.00317

2024-01-01

JCO Precision Oncology

Abstract:Advances in genomics have enabled anticancer therapies to be tailored to target specific genomic alterations. Single-arm trials (SATs), including those incorporated within umbrella, basket, and platform trials, are widely adopted when it is not feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials in rare biomarker-defined subpopulations. External controls (ECs), defined as control arm data derived outside the clinical trial, have gained renewed interest as a strategy to supplement evidence generated from SATs to allow comparative analysis. There are increasing examples demonstrating the application of EC in precision oncology trials. The prospective application of EC in conducting comparative studies is associated with distinct methodological challenges, the specific considerations for EC use in biomarker-defined subpopulations have not been adequately discussed, and a formal framework is yet to be established. In this review, we present a framework for conducting a prospective comparative analysis using EC. Key steps are (1) defining the purpose of using EC to address the study question, (2) determining if the external data are fit for purpose, (3) developing a transparent study protocol and a statistical analysis plan, and (iv) interpreting results and drawing conclusions on the basis of a prespecified hypothesis. We specify the considerations required for the biomarker-defined subpopulations, which include (1) specifying the comparator and biomarker status of the comparator group, (2) defining lines of treatment, (3) assessment of the biomarker testing panels used, and (4) assessment of cohort stratification in tumor-agnostic studies. We further discuss novel clinical trial designs and statistical techniques leveraging EC to propose future directions to advance evidence generation and facilitate drug development in precision oncology.

oncology
Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

Lotte van der Weijst,Abigirl Machingura,Ahu Alanya,Emma Lidington,Galina Velikova,Hans-Henning Flechtner,Heike Schmidt,Jens Lehmann,John K. Ramage,Jolie Ringash,Katarzyna Wac,Kathy Oliver,Katherine J. Taylor,Lisa Wintner,Lúcia P.C. Senna,Michael Koller,Olga Husson,Renée Bultijnck,Roger Wilson,Susanne Singer,Vesna Bjelic-Radisic,Winette T.A. van der Graaf,Madeline Pe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114313

IF: 10.002

2024-09-22

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in cancer clinical trials. Despite the availability of validated PRO measures (PROMs), challenges related to low completion rates and missing data remain, potentially affecting the trial results' validity. This review explored strategies to improve and maintain high PROM completion rates in cancer clinical trials. Methodology A scoping review was performed across Medline, Embase and Scopus and regulatory guidelines. Key recommendations were synthesized into categories such as stakeholder involvement, study design, PRO assessment, mode of assessment, participant support, and monitoring. Results The review identified 114 recommendations from 18 papers (16 peer-reviewed articles and 2 policy documents). The recommendations included integrating comprehensive PRO information into the study protocol, enhancing patient involvement during the protocol development phase and in education, and collecting relevant PRO data at clinically meaningful time points. Electronic data collection, effective monitoring systems, and sufficient time, capacity, workforce and financial resources were highlighted. Discussion Further research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in various context and to tailor these recommendations into practical and effective strategies. This will enhance PRO completion rates and patient-centred care. However, obstacles such as patient burden, low health literacy, and conflicting recommendations may present challenges in application.

oncology
Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework

Doah Cho,Sarah J Lord,Robyn Ward,Maarten IJzerman,Andrew Mitchell,David M Thomas,Saskia Cheyne,Andrew Martin,Rachael L Morton,John Simes,Chee Khoon Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241273062

2024-09-02

Abstract:Background: Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making. Objectives: To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker. Design: A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation. Methods: The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated. Results: We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies. Conclusion: This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.
Congenital Alopecia Areata: Another Case

F. Bardazzi,I. Neri,B. Raone,A. Patrizi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000018294

1999-12-24

Dermatology

Abstract:Although alopecia areata (AA) is commonly observed in childhood, it is rare in infants [1–3] and it has been reported only once in newborns [3]. We report a second case in a premature newborn. The patient, a healthy female weighing only 1,600 g, was born after 33 weeks of uneventful gestation with a normal delivery. At birth, she exhibited an alopecic area in the right parietal region in the absence of any sign of injury or inflammation. The patch was oval, 2 cm in diameter, with sharply defined edges and without scaling. A few exclamation mark hairs were present (fig. 1). The pull test on the surrounding areas did not detach any hair. The remaining skin, mucosae and nails were apparently normal. Neither the parents nor the other members of her family reported any episode of AA. The mother denied taking any kind of drugs during the pregnancy. A scalp biopsy was refused by the parents. The patient was treated with a placebo lotion and 3 months later, good, though still incomplete, hair growth was observed (fig. 2). Our patient reminds us of the case reported by De Viragh et al. [3], sharing the prematurity and the absence of any sign of injury and inflammation, which excludes post-traumatic labor or obstetric alopecia, and the same parietal location. The 2 cases, however, differ in that in the patient of De Viragh et al. [3] the patch was very large and remained unchanged for 1 year with only a slow response to a long and complex medical treatment. In contrast, our patient underwent rapid spontaneous regrowth. Traditionally, the presence of an alopecic area at birth rules out the diagnosis of AA, considered to be an acquired condition. For this reason, other congenital conditions have been considered. They include triangular alopecia, aplasia cutis, congenital sebaceous or aplastic or psiloliparus naevi, cystic lesions with underlying brain malformation (meningocele, encephalocele, ectopic meningeal tissue). In addition, patchy alopecia as a sign of complex syndromes, i.e. Adams-Oliver syndrome, Hallermann-Streiff syndrome, or trisomy 13, was considered. All these diagnoses were easily excluded. A congenital patchy alopecia located in the posterior parietal zone very similar to that of our patient has been reported by Rudolph [4]. The alopecic patch was supposedly located over the part of the brain which grows most rapidly from about 16 to19 weeks of gestation. Unfortunately, Rudolph [4] did not report its prevalence in newborns, its association with an underlying brain malformation and its evolution. In our patient, on the basis of the clinical data and especially the hair regrowth, the diagnosis of congenital AA was made. Although a first episode of AA in early childhood is regarded as a poor prognostic factor [5], its prognosis and significance remains enigmatic due to the lack of data on this rare condition. References 1 Muller SA, Winkelmann RR: Alopecia areata: An evaluation of 736 patients. Arch Dermatol 1963;88:290–297. 2 Bentivoglio GC: Un caso di alopecia areata in un lattante. Pediatria 1926; 34:952–960. 3 De Viragh PA, Gianadda B, Levy ML: Congenital alopecia areata. Dermatology 1997;195:96–98. 4 Rudolph AJ: Dermatology and perinatal infection; in Atlas of the Newborn. London, Decker Hamilton, 1997, p 33. 5 Tosti A, De Padova MP, Minghetti G, Veronesi S: Therapy versus placebo in the treatment of patchy alopecia areata. J Am Acad Dermatol 1986;15: 209–210.
Patients' selection and trial matching in early-phase oncology clinical trials

P. Corbaux,A. Bayle,S. Besle,A. Vinceneux,H. Vanacker,K. Ouali,B. Hanvic,C. Baldini,P.A. Cassier,C. Terret,L. Verlingue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104307

IF: 6.625

2024-02-24

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Abstract:Background Early-phase clinical trials (EPCT) represent an important part of innovations in medical oncology and a valuable therapeutic option for patients with metastatic cancers, particularly in the era of precision medicine. Nevertheless, adult patients' participation in oncology clinical trials is low, ranging from 2% to 8% worldwide, with unequal access, and up to 40% risk of early discontinuation in EPCT, mostly due to cancer-related complications. Design We review the tools and initiatives to increase patients' orientation and access to early phase cancer clinical trials, and to limit early discontinuation. Results New approaches to optimize the early-phase clinical trial referring process in oncology include automatic trial matching, tools to facilitate the estimation of patients' prognostic and/or to better predict patients' eligibility to clinical trials. Classical and innovative approaches should be associated to double patient recruitment, improve clinical trial enrollment experience and reduce early discontinuation rates. Conclusions Whereas EPCT are essential for patients to access the latest medical innovations in oncology, offering the appropriate trial when it is relevant for patients should increase by organizational and technological innovations. The oncologic community will need to closely monitor their performance, portability and simplicity for implementation in daily clinical practice.

oncology,hematology
Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers—an extrapolation framework

Doah Cho,Sarah J. Lord,Robyn Ward,Maarten IJzerman,Andrew Mitchell,David M. Thomas,Saskia Cheyne,Andrew Martin,Rachael L. Morton,John Simes,Chee Khoon Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241273062

2024-01-01

Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Abstract:Background: Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making. Objectives: To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker. Design: A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation. Methods: The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia’s Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated. Results: We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies. Conclusion: This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

oncology
Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens

Priscila Radu,Gayathri Kumar,Amanda Cole,Aikaterini Fameli,Mark Guthrie,Lieven Annemans,Jan Geissler,Antoine Italiano,Brian O’Rourke,Entela Xoxi,Lotte Steuten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae060

2024-04-17

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient’s genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies. Objectives This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines. Methods After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings. Results The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders. Conclusions Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes.

oncology
Evaluating the Implementation of Integrated Proactive Supportive Care Pathways in Oncology: Master Protocol for a Cohort Study

Maria Alice Franzoi,Arnaud Pages,Loula Papageorgiou,Antonio Di Meglio,Ariane Laparra,Elise Martin,Aude Barbier,Nathalie Renvoise,Johanna Arvis,Florian Scotte,Ines Vaz-Luis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/52841

2024-08-26

Abstract:Background: Supportive care (SC) refers to the prevention and management of complications of cancer and its treatment. While it has long been recognized as an important cancer care delivery component, a high proportion of patients face unaddressed SC needs, calling for innovative approaches to deliver SC. Objective: The objective of this master protocol is to evaluate the implementation of different integrated proactive SC pathways across the cancer care continuum in our institution (Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France). Pathways studied in this master protocol may occur shortly after diagnosis to prevent treatment-related burden; during treatment to monitor the onset of toxicities and provide timely symptom management; and after treatment to improve rehabilitation, self-management skills, and social reintegration. Methods: This study is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of SC pathways on patients' distress and unmet needs after 12 weeks, measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer and Problem List. Secondary objectives will focus on the pathways (macrolevel) and each SC intervention (microlevel), evaluating their reach (administrative data review of the absolute number and proportion of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients included in the pathways); short-term and long-term efficacy through their impact on quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire) and symptom burden (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and 22-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Sexual Health Questionnaire); adoption by patients and providers (administrative data review of SC referrals and attendance or use of SC strategies); barriers to and leverage for implementation (surveys and focus groups with patients, providers, and the hospital organization); and maintenance (cost-consequence analysis). Pilot evaluations with a minimum of 70 patients per pathway will be performed to generate mean Distress Thermometer scores and SDs informing the calculation of formal sample size needed for efficacy evaluation (cohorts will be enriched accordingly). Results: The study was approved by the ethics committee, and as of February 2024, a total of 12 patients were enrolled. Conclusions: This study will contribute toward innovative models of SC delivery and will inform the implementation of integrated SC pathways of care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06479057; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06479057. International registered report identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/52841.
Master Protocol Trial Design for Efficient and Rational Evaluation of Novel Therapeutic Oncology Devices

Danielle S Bitterman,Daniel N Cagney,Lisa Singer,Paul L Nguyen,Paul J Catalano,Raymond H Mak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz167

2019-08-27

Abstract:Abstract Historically, the gold standard for evaluation of cancer therapeutics, including medical devices, has been the randomized clinical trial. Although high-quality clinical data are essential for safe and judicious use of therapeutic oncology devices, class II devices require only preclinical data for US Food and Drug Administration approval and are often not rigorously evaluated prior to widespread uptake. Herein, we review master protocol design in medical oncology and its application to therapeutic oncology devices, using examples from radiation oncology. Unique challenges of clinical testing of radiation oncology devices (RODs) include patient and treatment heterogeneity, lack of funding for trials by industry and health-care payers, and operator dependence. To address these challenges, we propose the use of master protocols to optimize regulatory, financial, administrative, quality assurance, and statistical efficiency of trials evaluating RODs. These device-specific master protocols can be extrapolated to other devices and encompass multiple substudies with the same design, statistical considerations, logistics, and infrastructure. As a practical example, we outline our phase I and II master protocol trial of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging–guided adaptive radiotherapy, which to the best of our knowledge is the first master protocol trial to test a ROD. Development of more efficient clinical trials is needed to promote thorough evaluation of therapeutic oncology devices, including RODs, in a resource-limited environment, allowing more practical and rapid identification of the most valuable advances in our field.
A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Oriana Ciani,Anthony M Manyara,Philippa Davies,Derek Stewart,Christopher J Weir,Amber E Young,Jane Blazeby,Nancy J Butcher,Sylwia Bujkiewicz,An-Wen Chan,Dalia Dawoud,Martin Offringa,Mario Ouwens,Asbjørn Hróbjartssson,Alain Amstutz,Luca Bertolaccini,Vito Domenico Bruno,Declan Devane,Christina D C M Faria,Peter B Gilbert,Ray Harris,Marissa Lassere,Lucio Marinelli,Sarah Markham,John H Powers,Yousef Rezaei,Laura Richert,Falk Schwendicke,Larisa G Tereshchenko,Achilles Thoma,Alparslan Turan,Andrew Worrall,Robin Christensen,Gary S Collins,Joseph S Ross,Rod S Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102283

IF: 15.1

2023-10-17

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.
Mathematical modeling framework enhances clinical trial design for maintenance treatment in oncology

Emilia Kozłowska,Ulla-Maija Haltia,Krzysztof Puszynski,Anniina Färkkilä

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-80768-6

IF: 4.6

2024-12-01

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Clinical trials are costly and time-intensive endeavors, with a high rate of drug candidate failures. Moreover, the standard approaches often evaluate drugs under a limited number of protocols. In oncology, where multiple treatment protocols can yield divergent outcomes, addressing this issue is crucial. Here, we present a computational framework that simulates clinical trials through a combination of mathematical and statistical models. This approach offers a means to explore diverse treatment protocols efficiently and identify optimal strategies for oncological drug administration. We developed a computational framework with a stochastic mathematical model as its core, capable of simulating virtual clinical trials closely recapitulating the clinical scenarios. Testing our framework on the landmark SOLO-1 clinical trial investigating Poly-ADP-Ribose Polymerase maintenance treatment in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, we demonstrate that managing toxicity through treatment interruptions or dose reductions does not compromise treatment's clinical benefits. Additionally, we provide evidence suggesting that further reduction of hematological toxicity could significantly improve the clinical outcomes. The value of this computational framework lies in its ability to expedite the exploration of new treatment protocols, delivering critical insights pivotal to shaping the landscape of upcoming clinical trials.

multidisciplinary sciences
Design and Implementation of a Community Driven Clinical Trial Information Management System for Precision Oncology Settings

Georg Mathes,Sylvia Bochum,Patrick Werner,Christian Fegeler,Stefan Sigle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240844

2024-08-30

Abstract:Introduction: Trial recruitment is a crucial factor for precision oncology, potentially improving patient outcomes and generating new scientific evidence. To identify suitable, biomarker-based trials for patients' clinicians need to screen multiple clinical trial registries which lack support for modern trial designs and offer only limited options to filter for in- and exclusion criteria. Several registries provide trial information but are limited regarding factors like timeliness, quality of information and capability for semantic, terminology enhanced searching for aspects like specific inclusion criteria. Methods: We specified a Fast Healthcare Interoperable Resources (FHIR) Implementation Guide (IG) to represent clinical trials and their meta data. We embedded it into a community driven approach to maintain clinical trial data, which is fed by openly available data sources and later annotated by platform users. A governance model was developed to manage community contributions and responsibilities. Results: We implemented Community Annotated Trial Search (CATS), an interactive platform for clinical trials for the scientific community with an open and interoperable information model. It provides a base to collaboratively annotate clinical trials and serves as a comprehensive information source for community members. Its terminology driven annotations are coined towards precision oncology, but its principles can be transferred to other contexts. Conclusion: It is possible to use the FHIR standard and an open-source information model represented in our IG to build an open, interoperable clinical trial register. Advanced features like user suggestions and audit trails of individual resource fields could be represented by extending the FHIR standard. CATS is the first implementation of an open-for-collaboration clinical trial registry with modern oncological trial designs and machine-to-machine communication in mind and its methodology could be extended to other medical fields besides precision oncology. Due to its well-defined interfaces, it has the potential to provide automated patient recruitment decision support for precision oncology trials in digital applications.
High‐throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State‐of‐the‐art and beyond

Anders Edsjö,Hege G. Russnes,Janne Lehtiö,David Tamborero,Eivind Hovig,Albrecht Stenzinger,Richard Rosenquist,the PCM4EU consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.13785

2024-05-04

Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract:In the last decades, the development of high‐throughput molecular assays has revolutionised cancer diagnostics, paving the way for the concept of personalised cancer medicine. This progress has been driven by the introduction of such technologies through biomarker‐driven oncology trials. In this review, strengths and limitations of various state‐of‐the‐art sequencing technologies, including gene panel sequencing (DNA and RNA), whole‐exome/whole‐genome sequencing and whole‐transcriptome sequencing, are explored, focusing on their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers with diagnostic, prognostic and/or predictive impact. This includes the need to assess complex biomarkers, for example microsatellite instability, tumour mutation burden and homologous recombination deficiency, to identify patients suitable for specific therapies, including immunotherapy. Furthermore, the crucial role of biomarker analysis and multidisciplinary molecular tumour boards in selecting patients for trial inclusion is discussed in relation to various trial concepts, including drug repurposing. Recognising that today's exploratory techniques will evolve into tomorrow's routine diagnostics and clinical study inclusion assays, the importance of emerging technologies for multimodal diagnostics, such as proteomics and in vivo drug sensitivity testing, is also discussed. In addition, key regulatory aspects and the importance of patient engagement in all phases of a clinical trial are described. Finally, we propose a set of recommendations for consideration when planning a new precision cancer medicine trial.

medicine, general & internal
Learning from OCTET - exploring the acceptability of clinical trials management methods

Catherine Arundel,Judith Gellatly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2765-6

IF: 2.728

2018-07-13

Trials

Abstract:Background: Conducting research can be time consuming, difficult and challenging. Guidance and pragmatic advice focussing on randomised controlled trial conduct are available but do not necessarily constitute comprehensive guidance. A successful trial is one that recruits to time and target and collects high-quality data within the originally agreed budget. Standardised trial management tools have outlined key project management elements for a successful trial as a method of ensuring good practice in research trials: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and closure. Lessons are also frequently learnt during the development and conduct of trials but rarely shared for the benefit of others. For the wider research team, the key focus will always be on the execution and delivery of a study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of clinical trials management methods, focussing on study execution and monitoring, as implemented in the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET). Methods: Workshops, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to explore acceptability of trial management methods with members of the OCTET Trial research team. Nine members participated in the focus group, 10 completed a questionnaire and 20 were interviewed as part of qualitative work for the main OCTET study. Data was collected and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Six key themes were identified: support; communication; processes; resources; training and ethos. Clear and open communication, enthusiasm and accessibility of the trial managers and chief investigator were consistently noted as an important facet of the successful running of the trial. Clear resources and training materials were also found to be crucial in helping staff to work within the trial setting. Constructive suggestions were also made for improvement of these resources; for example, including both checklists and flowcharts within trial processes. Conclusion: Organisation, openness and positivity are crucial for executing a trial successfully, whilst clear and focussed processes and resources are essential in monitoring and controlling the trial progress. Although derived from a single study, these findings are likely to be applicable to the successful conduct of all trials. Trial managers should consider developing these elements when setting up a study. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN73535163 . Registered prospectively on 5 April 2011.
A Review and Comparative Case Study Analysis of Real-World Evidence in European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making for Oncology Medicines

Jihong Zong,Adina Rojubally,Xiaoyun Pan,Birgit Wolf,Scott Greenfeder,Alexander Upton,Joette Gdovin Bergeson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.007

2024-10-10

Abstract:Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE) is valuable in supporting regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decisions; however, the actual contribution to approvals remains elusive. This study aimed to review RWE approaches and use in oncology medicine approvals in Europe and understand cohesion and discrepancy in the acceptance of the RWE by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European HTA bodies. Methods: This scoping review involved a search of the EMA database, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), and Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) websites to identify final reports and appraisals for oncology medicines with references to RWE. The selection was guided by research terms associated with RWE study designs, data sources, and outcomes. Qualitative analysis was used to systemize the data. Case studies assessed by more than one agency were selected for comparative assessment of RWE approach, use, and acceptability. Results: RWE was mainly leveraged as an external control for indirect treatment comparisons or contextualization to support clinical trial results by the EMA, NICE, G-BA, and HAS. However, this approach was mostly rejected due to methodology biases. Comparative assessment of RWE acceptability for the same oncology medicines across agencies suggests discrepancies between EMA and European HTA bodies and among NICE, G-BA, and HAS. Conclusions: There is diverging acceptance of RWE in EMA and European HTA bodies with no clear consensus on the most effective way to leverage RWE in approvals. With the introduction of the joint European Union Joint Clinical Assessment in 2025, it is crucial for European HTA bodies and EMA to develop synergetic standards for the use of RWE to ensure equitable and timely access to medicines.

Neurovascular Emergencies in Pregnancy

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Reduction of doxorubicin toxicity by methylene blue in cultured rat myocardial cells.

Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

A Field Test of Major Value Frameworks in Chemotherapy of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma—To Know, Then to Measure

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials

Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers-an extrapolation framework

Congenital Alopecia Areata: Another Case

Patients' selection and trial matching in early-phase oncology clinical trials

Criteria for assessing evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers—an extrapolation framework

Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens

Evaluating the Implementation of Integrated Proactive Supportive Care Pathways in Oncology: Master Protocol for a Cohort Study

Master Protocol Trial Design for Efficient and Rational Evaluation of Novel Therapeutic Oncology Devices

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Mathematical modeling framework enhances clinical trial design for maintenance treatment in oncology

Design and Implementation of a Community Driven Clinical Trial Information Management System for Precision Oncology Settings

High‐throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State‐of‐the‐art and beyond

Learning from OCTET - exploring the acceptability of clinical trials management methods

A Review and Comparative Case Study Analysis of Real-World Evidence in European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making for Oncology Medicines