The performance of model-based versus rule-based phase I clinical trials in oncology

E. V. Brummelen,A. Huitema,E. Werkhoven,J. Beijnen,J. Schellens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-016-9466-0

2016-03-10

Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Model-based meta-analysis of non-small cell lung cancer with standard of care PD-1 inhibitors and chemotherapy for early development decision making

David C. Turner,Russ Wada,Helen Zhou,Xiaowei Wang,Rik de Greef,Chandni Valiathan,Lindsey Zhang,Nancy Zhang,Mita Kuchimanchi,Tai-Tsang Chen,Marc Ballas,Sandra A. G. Visser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12917

2023-01-01

Abstract:Single-arm cohorts/trials are often used in early phase oncology programs to support preliminary clinical activity assessments for investigational products, administered alone or in combination with standard of care (SOC) agents. Benchmarking clinical activity of those combinations against other treatments, including SOC, requires indirect comparisons against external trials, which presents challenges including cross-study differences in trial populations/other factors. To facilitate such nonrandomized comparisons, we developed a comprehensive model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) framework to quantitatively adjust for factors related to efficacy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Data were derived from 15 published studies assessing key programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab (n = 8) and nivolumab (n = 7), representing current SOC in mNSCLC. In the first stage, a mixed-effects logistic regression model for overall response rate (ORR) was developed accounting for effects of various population covariates on ORR. The ORR model results indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.02 for squamous versus non-squamous histology and OR of 1.20 for PD-ligand 1 tumor proportion score (TPS) per every 10% increase of TPS level. Next, a nonparametric mixed-effects model for overall survival (OS) was developed with ORR/other clinical covariates as input. Subsequently, MBMA simulations of relevant hypothetical scenarios involving single-arm trial design predicted OS hazard ratios as a function of ORR with matched patient characteristics. Findings from this MBMA and derived parameter estimates can be generally applied by the reader as a framework for interpreting efficacy data from early phase trials to support ORR-based go/no-go decisions and futility rules, illustrated through examples in this report.
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
Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

Yanhong Zhou,J. Jack Lee,Shunguang Wang,Stuart Bailey,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2121

2021-01-01

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Incorporating historical data or real-world evidence has a great potential to improve the efficiency of phase I clinical trials and to accelerate drug development. For model-based designs, such as the continuous reassessment method (CRM), this can be conveniently carried out by specifying a "skeleton," i.e., the prior estimate of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) probability at each dose. In contrast, little work has been done to incorporate historical data or real-world evidence into model-assisted designs, such as the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN), keyboard, and modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) designs. This has led to the misconception that model-assisted designs cannot incorporate prior information. In this paper, we propose a unified framework that allows for incorporating historical data or real-world evidence into model-assisted designs. The proposed approach uses the well-established "skeleton" approach, combined with the concept of prior effective sample size, thus it is easy to understand and use. More importantly, our approach maintains the hallmark of model-assisted designs: simplicity---the dose escalation/de-escalation rule can be tabulated prior to the trial conduct. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed method can effectively incorporate prior information to improve the operating characteristics of model-assisted designs, similarly to model-based designs.
BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS

Ruitao Lin,Haolun Shi,Guosheng Yin,Peter F. Thali,Ying Yuan,Christopher R. Flowers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/22-aoas1600

2022-01-01

Abstract:We propose a curve-free random-effects meta-analysis approach to combining data from multiple phase I clinical trials to identify an optimal dose. Our method accounts for between-study heterogeneity that may stem from different study designs, patient populations, or tumor types. We also develop a meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) method, based on a power prior, that incorporates data from multiple historical studies into the design and conduct of a new phase I trial. Performances of the proposed methods for data analysis and trial design are evaluated by extensive simulation studies. The proposed random-effects meta-analysis method provides more reliable dose selection than comparators that rely on parametric assumptions. The MAP-based dosefinding designs are generally more efficient than those that do not borrow information, especially when the current and historical studies are similar. The proposed methodologies are illustrated by a meta-analysis of five historical phase I studies of Sorafenib and design of a new phase I trial.
Histopathological findings in fatal novel H1N1: an autopsy case series from September-November 2009 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

J. Springer,M. Safley,Samantha A Huber,D. Troxclair,R. Craver,W. Newman,Robin R Mcgoey

2010-03-01

Abstract:Autopsy findings are presented on six patients in the greater New Orleans area with confirmed novel H1N1 in New Orleans, Louisiana, between the months of September to November 2009. Each case was reviewed for antemortem clinical data as well as pre-existing comorbidities. Results from postmortem gross, histological and bacteriologic analyses are detailed and support the assertion that pathologic findings associated with novel H1N1 are similar to those attributed to previous pandemics, though the rate of bacterial super-infection is variable and may depend on the analytical method of microbiologic testing. The current case series is also remarkable for the associated rate of pulmonary thromboemboli and acute renal failure as potential clinical associations with the current pandemic.
Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

Heng Zhou,Thomas A. Murray,Haitao Pan,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7674

2018-01-01

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:A number of novel phase I trial designs have been proposed that aim to combine the simplicity of algorithm‐based designs with the superior performance of model‐based designs, including the modified toxicity probability interval, Bayesian optimal interval, and Keyboard designs. In this article, we review these “model‐assisted” designs, contrast their statistical foundations and pros and cons, and compare their operating characteristics with the continual reassessment method. To provide unbiased and reliable results, our comparison is based on 10 000 dose‐toxicity scenarios randomly generated using the pseudo‐uniform algorithm recently proposed in the literature. The results showed that the continual reassessment method, Bayesian optimal interval, and Keyboard designs provide comparable, superior operating characteristics, and each outperforms the modified toxicity probability interval design. These designs are more likely to correctly select the maximum tolerated dose and less likely to overdose patients.
Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer

Ji Son,Heather Y. Lin,Siqing Fu,Amadeo B. Biter,Ecaterina E. Dumbrava,Daniel D. Karp,Aung Naing,Shubham Pant,Sarina A. Piha-Paul,Jordi Rodon,Vivek Subbiah,Apostolia M. Tsimberidou,Timothy A. Yap,Michael M. Frumovitz,Amir A. Jazaeri,Pedro T. Ramirez,Shannon N. Westin,Ying Yuan,Funda Meric-Bernstam,David S. Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36401/jipo-22-23

2023-01-01

Journal of Immunotherapy and Precision Oncology

Abstract:Introduction: We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials. Methods: Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed. Results: We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/lL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/ lL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases. Conclusion: Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
Preclinical studies performed in appropriate models could help identify optimal timing of combined chemotherapy and immunotherapy

Yani Berckmans,Jolien Ceusters,Ann Vankerckhoven,Roxanne Wouters,Matteo Riva,An Coosemans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1236965

IF: 7.3

2023-09-08

Frontiers in Immunology

Abstract:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been revolutionary in the field of cancer therapy. However, their success is limited to specific indications and cancer types. Recently, the combination treatment of ICI and chemotherapy has gained more attention to overcome this limitation. Unfortunately, many clinical trials testing these combinations have provided limited success. This can partly be attributed to an inadequate choice of preclinical models and the lack of scientific rationale to select the most effective immune-oncological combination. In this review, we have analyzed the existing preclinical evidence on this topic, which is only limitedly available. Furthermore, this preclinical data indicates that besides the selection of a specific drug and dose, also the sequence or order of the combination treatment influences the study outcome. Therefore, we conclude that the success of clinical combination trials could be enhanced by improving the preclinical set up, in order to identify the optimal treatment combination and schedule to enhance the anti-tumor immunity.

immunology
Abstract 2386: Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer

Maarten A. Huismans,Lidwien P. Smabers,Niels N. van Nieuwenhuijzen,Monique C. Minnema,Miriam Koopman,Hugo J. Snippert,Anne M. May,Jeanine M. Roodhart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-2386

IF: 11.2

2024-04-04

Cancer Research

Abstract:Introduction: Despite a decade of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) therapeutic innovations, a comprehensive synthesis of patient outcome and risk-benefit assessment of phase 1/2 trials, extending beyond single-center studies, is missing. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess efficacy, safety, and trends over time for phase 1 and 2 mCRC trials by examining clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall response rate (ORR), grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE), and discontinuation due to AE. Methods: The protocol and search were preregistered on PROSPERO. We searched PubMed and Embase for publications of phase 1/2 trials between 2010-2022. Reports were screened for inclusion criteria, followed by data-extraction by two researchers. Trials reporting on non-standard therapies for treatment-refractory mCRC or trials reporting specific mCRC efficacy data were included. CBR was defined as the proportion of patients with complete/partial response or stable disease ≥14 weeks. We used logit transformations for pooled effect analysis via a random-effects model, assigning study weights by the inverse variance method. Subgroup analyses were performed for publication year, preselection on molecular traits, and drug class: antiangiogenics, chemotherapy, immunomodulator, targeted therapy, or vaccine. Data are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI); reported differences had non-overlapping CIs. Results: The search strategy yielded 4175 unique reports, from which we extracted data for 279 trials. Most trials were phase 1 (63%). ORR was limited to 6% [6-7] in both phase 1 and 2, CBR was higher in phase 2 than in phase 1 trials (36% vs 27%). Trials testing antiangiogenic drugs had the highest CBR (47%) and immunomodulators the highest ORR (8%). Trials with patients preselected on molecular traits had higher CBR compared to other trials (38% vs 28%). We observed an increase in efficacy, especially in phase 2 trials, with a CBR rising from 22% to 42% between trials published in 2010-2012 and 2019-2021. Compared with 2010-2012, trials in 2019-2021 were more often testing immunomodulators (23% vs 4%), performed on molecular preselected populations (38% vs 4%), and including younger patients (median age <60 in 66% vs 44%). The occurrence of grade 3+ AE was 33% [28-38] in both phase 1 and 2. AE led to discontinuation in 12% of phase 1 trial patients, and 7% of phase 2 patients. Grade 3+ AE occurred in 4% of vaccine trial patients, in contrast to 41% in trials on targeted therapies. Occurrence of grade 3+ AE did not change over time. Conclusion: We found limited ORR and CBR in early phase trials conducted in 2010-2021 for mCRC patients, while noting severe AEs in many patients. However, during this period, clinical benefit rate increased for phase 2 trials, possibly due to evolving study strategies that entail testing new treatment types in a younger, fitter, and stricter preselected study population based on molecular traits. Citation Format: Maarten A. Huismans, Lidwien P. Smabers, Niels N. van Nieuwenhuijzen, Monique C. Minnema, Miriam Koopman, Hugo J. Snippert, Anne M. May, Jeanine M. Roodhart. Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 2386.

oncology
Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231412

2024-01-01

Abstract:Table S3: List of 341 trials included in the overall analysis. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; mFOLFOX, folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin; FOLFIRI, folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; R-DHAP; rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; O-DHAP; ofatumumab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; EDP, etoposide doxorubicin cisplatin; G-CHOP, obintuzumab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; RCHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; VR-CAP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib; AC, Adriamycin with cyclophosphamide; T, paclitaxel; XT, capecitabine plus paclitaxel; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; IFN, interferon; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; FA, folinic acid; recMAGE-A3, recombinant MAGE A-3; NGR-Htnf, NGR–human tumor necrosis factor; TACE, trans-arterial chemoembolization; T-DM1, Trastuzumab emtansine; Mf, mitomycin-C and fluoropyrimidine; iceMFP, intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg), intravenous mitomycin-C (15 mg/m(2)) on postoperative day 1, followed by oral doxifluridine for 12 months, and six monthly intravenous cisplatin (60 mg/m(2); RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
Neurovascular Emergencies in Pregnancy

M. Dias

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

1994-06-01

Abstract:
Quantitative evaluation of single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials

Gregory R Pond,Saqib Abbasi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774511401764

2011-04-20

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background There is a debate among cancer researchers about the use of single-arm or randomized phase II clinical trial designs; however, there is limited published objective evaluation of this issue. Purpose To objectively quantify the impact on phase III clinical trials of a policy of all single-arm versus all randomized phase II trials. Methods A simulation study was performed comparing optimal single-arm and randomized phase II trial designs with a variety of commonly used α and β error rates. Parameters modeled included: between-institution variability in the standard of care response rate, between-institution variability in the treatment effect, between-institution variability in the estimate of historical control rate (for selecting H0), presence of historical bias, and proportion of phase II trials conducted using active agents. Results Using single-arm phase II trials resulted in a higher percentage of phase III trials conducted using active agents when there was minimal standard of care activity, or in the presence of a positive historical bias (H0 estimated to be greater than truth). Randomized phase II trials performed better in the presence of a negative historical bias, in the presence of high variability, and were more consistent across variation of historical bias. The proportion of phase III trials conducted using active agents was increased by reducing the α error. Presence of historical bias and the proportion of active agents studied in phase II had the greatest influence on results. Limitations It was estimated that between 5% and 20% of agents studied in phase II trials are active; however, the conclusions could change if this estimate is incorrect. This study did not account for the possibility of a new drug application submission immediately following phase II. The primary outcome looked at was response rate, although some investigators have suggested that time-to-event outcomes should be used in phase II, particularly for randomized phase II trials. Conclusions Both single-arm and randomized phase II trials appear warranted in certain situations. Investigators should increase consideration of the potential impact on phase III trials to optimally select the proper trial design prior to phase II study implementation.

medicine, research & experimental
Systematic Evaluation of Osimertinib Population Pharmacokinetic Models in a Cohort of Dutch Adults with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Niels Westra,Paul D. Kruithof,Sander Croes,Robin M. J. M. van Geel,Lizza E. L. Hendriks,Daan J. Touw,Thijs H. Oude Munnink,Paola Mian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-024-00904-5

2024-06-16

European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics

Abstract:Several population pharmacokinetic (popPK) studies have been reported that can guide the prediction of osimertinib plasma concentrations in individual patients. It is currently unclear which popPK model offers the best predictive performance and which popPK models are most suitable for nonadherence management and model-informed precision dosing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to externally validate all osimertinib popPK models available in the current literature.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Bayesian Interim Analysis and Efficiency of Phase III Randomized Trials

Alexander Dean Sherry,Pavlos Msaouel,Avital Miller,Timothy Lin,Gabrielle Kupferman,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El-Alam,Roshal Patel,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Tomer Meirson,Zachary B. McCaw,Ethan Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.27.24309608

2024-06-28

Abstract:IMPORTANCE Improving the efficiency of interim assessments in phase III trials should reduce trial costs, hasten the approval of efficacious therapies, and mitigate patient exposure to disadvantageous randomizations. OBJECTIVE We hypothesized that in silico Bayesian early stopping rules improve the efficiency of phase III trials compared with the original frequentist analysis without compromising overall interpretation. DESIGN Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING 230 randomized phase III oncology trials enrolling 184,752 participants. PARTICIPANTS Individual patient-level data were manually reconstructed from primary endpoint Kaplan-Meier curves. INTERVENTIONS Trial accruals were simulated 100 times per trial and leveraged published patient outcomes such that only the accrual dynamics, and not the patient outcomes, were randomly varied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Early stopping was triggered per simulation if interim analysis demonstrated >= 85% probability of minimum clinically important difference/3 for efficacy or futility. Trial-level early closure was defined by stopping frequencies >= 0.75. RESULTS A total of 12,451 simulations (54%) met early stopping criteria. Trial-level early stopping frequency was highly predictive of the published outcome (OR, 7.24; posterior probability of association, >99.99%; AUC, 0.91; P < 0.0001). Trial-level early closure was recommended for 82 trials (36%), including 62 trials (76%) which had performed frequentist interim analysis. Bayesian early stopping rules were 96% sensitive (95% CI, 91% to 98%) for detecting trials with a primary endpoint difference, and there was a high level of agreement in overall trial interpretation (Bayesian Cohen k, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.92 to 0.99). However, Bayesian interim analysis was associated with >99.99% posterior probability of reducing patient enrollment requirements (P < 0.0001), with an estimated cumulative enrollment reduction of 20,543 patients (11%; 89 patients averaged equally over all studied trials) and an estimated cumulative cost savings of 851 million USD (3.7 million USD averaged equally over all studied trials). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Bayesian interim analyses may improve randomized trial efficiency by reducing enrollment requirements without compromising trial interpretation. Increased utilization of Bayesian interim analysis has the potential to reduce costs of late-phase trials, reduce patient exposures to ineffective therapies, and accelerate approvals of effective therapies.

Oncology
Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands: the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness

Brenda Leeneman,Nicolas S.H. Xander,W. Edward Fiets,Wouter K. de Jong,Nathalie E.M. Uyl,A.N. Machteld Wymenga,An K.L. Reyners,Carin A. Uyl-de Groot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114002

IF: 10.002

2024-03-12

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background In the Netherlands, the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs) is assessed by the Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM). For non-curative SACTs, the assessment is based on the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival and/or overall survival (OS), and the difference in median survival. We evaluated the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness by reassessing the clinical benefit of SACTs. Methods We reassessed SACTs that were initially assessed by cieBOM between 2015 and 2017. Four scenarios were formulated: replacing an " OR " approach (initial assessment) by an " AND " approach (used in all scenarios), changing the HR threshold from <0.70 (initial assessment) to 12 weeks (initial assessment) to >16 weeks, and including thresholds for OS rates. The outcomes of these scenarios were compared to the outcomes of the initial assessment. Results Reassessments were conducted for 41 treatments. Replacing the " OR " approach by an " AND " approach substantially decreased the number of positive assessments (from 33 to 22), predominantly affecting immunotherapies. This number further decreased (to 21 and 19, respectively) in case more restrictive thresholds for the HR and difference in median survival were used. Including thresholds for OS rates slightly mitigated the impact of applying an " AND " approach. Conclusions The scenario-specific thresholds had a substantial impact; the number of negative assessments more than doubled. Since this was not limited to treatments with marginal survival benefits, understanding the potential challenges that may arise from applying more restrictive thresholds is essential.

oncology
A multistate model for early decision making in oncology

Ulrich Beyer,David Dejardin,Matthias Meller,Kaspar Rufibach,Hans Ulrich Burger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201800250

2018-08-22

Abstract:The development of oncology drugs progresses through multiple phases, where after each phase a decision is made about whether to move a molecule forward. Early phase efficacy decisions are often made on the basis of single arm studies based on RECIST tumor response as endpoint. This decision rules are implicitly assuming some form of surrogacy between tumor response and long-term endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). The surrogacy is most often assessed as weak, but sufficient to allow a rapid decision making as early phase studies lack the survival follow up and number of patients to properly assess PFS or OS. With the emergence of therapies with new mechanisms of action, for which the link between RECIST tumor response and long-term endpoints is either not accessible yet because not enough data is available to perform a meta-regression, or the link is weaker than with classical chemotherapies, tumor response based rules may not be optimal. In this paper, we explore the use of a multistate model for decision making based on single-arm early phase trials. The multistate model allows to account for more information than the simple RECIST response status, namely, the time to get to response, the duration of response, the PFS time and time to death. We propose to base the decision on efficacy on the OS hazard ratio (HR), predicted from a multistate model based on early phase data with limited survival follow-up, combined with historical control data. Using three case studies and simulations, we illustrate the feasibility of the estimation of the OS HR using a multistate model based on limited data from early phase studies. We argue that, in the presence of limited follow up and small sample size, and on assumptions within the multistate model, the OS prediction is acceptable and may lead to better decisions for continuing the development of a drug.

Applications
An Overview of the Optimal Planning, Design, and Conduct of Phase I Studies of New Therapeutics

Patricia M. LoRusso,Scott A. Boerner,Lesley Seymour

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-1993

IF: 13.801

2010-03-09

Clinical Cancer Research

Abstract:Phase I clinical trials represent the first step in bringing promising new treatments from the laboratory to the clinic. Although the importance of phase I clinical trials is widely recognized, there is currently no consensus among the scientific, medical, and statistical communities on how best to do these studies in humans. With the advent of targeted therapies, it has become evident that we need to tailor the design of phase I studies for the particular drug class under investigation and any endpoints that are being defined. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) provides broad external scientific and clinical input on the design and prioritization of early-phase clinical trials with agents for which the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) holds an Investigational New Drug (IND) application through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The IDSC has formed a number of task forces and working groups, including the Clinical Trial Design Task Force and the Biomarker Working Group, many with membership from within the IDSC as well as external experts, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory authorities. The Clinical Trials Design Taskforce sponsored a Phase I Workshop with the primary goal being to develop consensus recommendations for the optimal design of phase I studies. The primary focus included (1) efficient trial designs, (2) phase I drug combinations, and (3) appropriate statistical and correlative endpoints. In this CCR Focus series, articles summarize key aspects and recommendations on phase I studies (including combination trials), such as design, use of biomarkers, the European Union and Japanese perspectives on design, requirements for first-in-human and other phase I studies, and ensuring regulatory and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) compliance. A final article summarizes recommendations for the design and conduct of phase II studies.

oncology
The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

H E M van Luijn,N K Aaronson,R B Keus,A W Musschenga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.001503

2006-03-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: There are indications that institutional review board (IRB) members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio (RBR) of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial.PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: identification and estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial's RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability.RESULTS: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members' final judgement on the trial's ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol.CONCLUSIONS: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits-for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Recent Status of Phase I Clinical Trials for Brain Tumors: A Regulatory Science Study of Exploratory Efficacy Endpoints

Shinya Watanabe,Takahiro Nonaka,Makoto Maeda,Masanobu Yamada,Narushi Sugii,Koichi Hashimoto,Shingo Takano,Tomoyoshi Koyanagi,Yoshihiro Arakawa,Eiichi Ishikawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00644-3

2024-03-27

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:Appropriate exploratory efficacy data from Phase I trials are vital for subsequent phases. Owing to the uniqueness of brain tumors (BTs), use of different strategies to evaluate efficacy is warranted. We studied exploratory efficacy evaluation in Phase I trials involving BTs.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Development and Implementation of Clinical Decision Algorithms for Oncology

Kees C W J Ebben,Thijs van Vegchel,Marieke Massa,Matthijs Sloep,Jurrian van der Werf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240662

2024-08-22

Abstract:Decision-making in healthcare often relies on narrative guidelines; however, these instruments are poorly accessible for supporting clinical decision-making. This study explores the application of rule-based decision logic in algorithmic modeling, emphasizing its great potential in clinical decision support and research. Integrating rule-based algorithms with existing information systems and real-world data poses a serious challenge. Integrating decision algorithms with information standards increases their effectiveness across various applications. This study outlines a method for constructing clinical decision trees (CDTs), highlighting their transparency and interpretability, using information standards as a design principle. We use the digitization of the Dutch breast cancer guideline through CDTs as a case study to exemplify their versatility and practical significance. The process step 'primary treatment' has been successfully translated from the narrative guidelines format to the anticipated ted computational format.

The performance of model-based versus rule-based phase I clinical trials in oncology

Model-based meta-analysis of non-small cell lung cancer with standard of care PD-1 inhibitors and chemotherapy for early development decision making

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

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS

Histopathological findings in fatal novel H1N1: an autopsy case series from September-November 2009 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer

Preclinical studies performed in appropriate models could help identify optimal timing of combined chemotherapy and immunotherapy

Abstract 2386: Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety in early-phase clinical trials for refractory colorectal cancer

Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Neurovascular Emergencies in Pregnancy

Quantitative evaluation of single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials

Systematic Evaluation of Osimertinib Population Pharmacokinetic Models in a Cohort of Dutch Adults with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Bayesian Interim Analysis and Efficiency of Phase III Randomized Trials

Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands: the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness

A multistate model for early decision making in oncology

An Overview of the Optimal Planning, Design, and Conduct of Phase I Studies of New Therapeutics

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

Recent Status of Phase I Clinical Trials for Brain Tumors: A Regulatory Science Study of Exploratory Efficacy Endpoints

Development and Implementation of Clinical Decision Algorithms for Oncology