Time to progression ratio in cancer patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials: time for new guidelines?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Reliable evaluation of treatment benefit in early phase clinical trials is necessary. The time to progression ratio (TTPr), which compares successive TTP in a single patient, is a powerful criteria for determining targeted or immune therapies efficacy.Methods
We evaluated 205 TTPr in a large cohort of 177 advanced cancer patients enrolled in at least two Phase 1/1b trials (out of 2827 phase 1/1b-treated patients) at Gustave Roussy.Results
This first wide description of TTPr showed that, under the hypothesis of overall absence of treatment line effect, the median TTPr was 0.7 and that 25% of patients presented a TTPr above the conventional efficacy threshold of 1.3.Conclusions
A higher median TTPr and a larger proportion of patients above the 1.3 threshold should therefore be achieved to conclude to drug efficacy. New guidelines for TTPr interpretation and calibration are proposed, which warrant independent prospective validation.
SUBMITTER: Watson S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6203755 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients, with questions remaining about their safety and efficacy in this population. Patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials receive novel treatments with unknown efficacy and safety profiles. Studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in these patients are urgently required. This is a retrospective, real-world, cohort study of patients receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines between 1 February and 25 June 2021 at the Division of New Drugs Development for Innovative Therapies of the European Institute of Oncology. One hundred thirteen patients were enrolled, 40 in early-phase clinical trials, and 20 under novel immunotherapy agents. Nearly three-quarters of the patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) after the first dose (1D) (74.3%) and second dose (2D) (72.6%). Most of the AEs were local (67.3% 1D and 61.9% after 2D), while 31.8% (1D) and 38.1% (2D) of the patients had systemic AEs. No AEs above grade 2 were observed. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, including patients receiving novel immunotherapy compounds. All cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of ongoing treatments or enrollment in early-phase trials.
| S-EPMC8616209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients who do not complete one cycle of therapy on Phase I trials for reasons other than dose limiting toxicity (DLT) are considered inevaluable for toxicity and must be replaced.Individual records from patients enrolled to NCI-sponsored Phase I trials activated between 2000 and 2010 were used. Early discontinuation was defined as the failure to begin cycle 2 for reasons other than a DLT during cycle 1. A multinomial logistic regression with a 3-level nominal outcome (early discontinuation, DLT during cycle 1, and continuation to cycl1e 2) was used with continuation to cycle 2 serving as the reference category. The final model was used to create two risk scores. An independent external cohort was used to validate these models.Data from 3079 patients on 127 Phase I trials were analyzed. ECOG performance status (1, ? 2, two-sided P = .0315 and P = .0007), creatinine clearance (<60 ml/min, P = .0455), alkaline phosphatase (>2.5xULN, P = .0026), AST (>ULN, P = .0076), hemoglobin (<10 g/dL, P < .0001), albumin (<3.5 g/dL, P < .0001), and platelets (<400x109/L, P = .0732) were predictors of early discontinuation. The c-index of the final model was 0.63.Knowledge of risk factors for early treatment discontinuation in conjunction with clinical judgment can help guide Phase I patient selection.
| S-EPMC4662493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown.MethodsMedication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups.ResultsSeven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available.ConclusionOne in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.
| S-EPMC8914495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAdaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics.MethodsFrom an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured.ResultOne early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome.ConclusionThe one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.
| S-EPMC6649924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of early stage clinical trials is to determine the recommended dose and toxicity profile of an investigational agent or multi-drug combination. Molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) and immunotherapies have distinct toxicities from chemotherapies that are often not dose dependent and can lead to chronic and sometimes unpredictable side effects. Therefore utilizing a dose escalation method that has toxicity based endpoints may not be as appropriate for determination of recommended dose, and alternative parameters such as pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic outcomes are potentially appealing options. Approaches to enhance safety and optimize dosing include improved preclinical models and assessment, innovative model based design and dose escalation strategies, patient selection, the use of expansion cohorts and extended toxicity assessments. Tailoring the design of phase I trials by adopting new strategies to address the different properties of MTAs is required to enhance the development of these agents. This review will focus on the limitations to safety and dose determination that have occurred in the development of MTAs and immunotherapies. In addition, strategies are proposed to overcome these challenges to develop phase I trials that can more accurately define the recommended dose and identify adverse events.
| S-EPMC4329110 | biostudies-other
Project description:There has been constant development of novel statistical methods in the design of early-phase clinical trials since the introduction of model-based designs, yet the traditional or modified 3+3 algorithmic design remains the most widely used approach in dose-finding studies. Research has shown the limitations of this traditional design compared with more innovative approaches yet the use of these model-based designs remains infrequent. This can be attributed to several causes including a poor understanding from clinicians and reviewers into how the designs work, and how best to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed design. These barriers are likely to be enhanced in the coming years as the recent paradigm of drug development involves a shift to more complex dose-finding problems. This article reviews relevant information that should be included in clinical trial protocols to aid in the acceptance and approval of novel methods. We provide practical guidance for implementing these efficient designs with the aim of augmenting a broader transition from algorithmic to adaptive model-guided designs. In addition we highlight issues to consider in the actual implementation of a trial once approval is obtained. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC5003756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical development of cancer drugs is rapidly moving from empirical "one drug fits all" or development-by-tumor-type approaches towards more personalized treatment models. A deeper understanding of cancer and the immune system, novel technologies, and powerful analytics have fueled an increase in precision oncology approaches integrating the molecular profiles of the tumor with the clinical profile of the patient. While this approach has been successful for targeted therapies, the complex mode of action of immunotherapies will likely require integration of clinical profiling with more comprehensive profiling of the tumor, of the tumor microenvironment, and of the immune system of the patient. Integration of precision oncology into clinical research for immunotherapies is viewed as a means to better select patients in the early clinical phase of drug development to (1) maximize the benefit-to-risk ratio for the patient, (2) generate early proof of concept and proof of relevance for the investigational drug, and (3) inform on how to best combine or sequence the therapeutic with other drugs. Here we discuss the upsides and challenges of incorporating precision immuno-oncology into early-phase clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6875515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When designing phase II clinical trials, it is important to construct interim monitoring rules that achieve a balance between reliable early stopping for futility or safety and maintaining a high true positive probability (TPP), which is the probability of not stopping if the new treatment is truly safe and effective. We define and compare several methods for specifying early stopping boundaries as functions of interim sample size, rather than as fixed cut-offs, using Bayesian posterior probabilities as decision criteria. We consider boundaries with constant, linear, or exponential shapes. For design optimization criteria, we use the TPP and mean number of patients enrolled in the trial. Simulations to evaluate and compare the designs' operating characteristics under a range of scenarios show that, while there is no uniformly optimal boundary, an appropriately calibrated exponential shape maintains high TPP while limiting the number of patients assigned to a treatment with an inferior response rate or an excessive toxicity rate.
| S-EPMC9149588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular markers define the diagnosis of glioblastoma in the new WHO classification of 2016, challenging neuro-oncology centers to provide timely treatment initiation. The aim of this study was to determine whether a time delay to treatment initiation was accompanied by signs of early tumor progression in an MRI before the start of radiotherapy, and, if so, whether this influences the survival of glioblastoma patients. Images from 61 patients with early post-surgery MRI and a second MRI just before the start of radiotherapy were examined retrospectively for signs of early tumor progression. Survival information was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and a Cox multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent variables for survival prediction. 59 percent of patients showed signs of early tumor progression after a mean time of 24.1 days from the early post-surgery MRI to the start of radiotherapy. Compared to the group without signs of early tumor progression, which had a mean time of 23.3 days (p = 0.685, Student's t test), progression free survival was reduced from 320 to 185 days (HR 2.3; CI 95% 1.3-4.0; p = 0.0042, log-rank test) and overall survival from 778 to 329 days (HR 2.9; CI 95% 1.6-5.1; p = 0.0005). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the Karnofsky performance score, O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation, and signs of early tumor progression are prognostic markers of overall survival. Early tumor progression at the start of radiotherapy is associated with a worse prognosis for glioblastoma patients. A standardized baseline MRI might allow for better patient stratification.
| S-EPMC5378726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Precision medicine in oncology promises the matching of genomic, molecular, and clinical data with underlying mechanisms of a range of novel anticancer therapeutics to develop more rational and effective antitumor strategies in a timely manner. However, despite the remarkable progress made in the understanding of novel drivers of different oncogenic processes, success rates for the approval of oncology drugs remain low with substantial fiscal consequences. In this article, we focus on how recent rapid innovations in technology have brought greater clarity to the biological and clinical complexities of different cancers and advanced the development of molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies in clinical trials. We discuss the key challenges of identifying and validating predictive biomarkers of response and resistance using both tumor and surrogate tissues, as well as the hurdles associated with intratumor heterogeneity. Finally, we outline evolving strategies employed in early-phase trial designs that incorporate omics-based technologies.
| S-EPMC4648610 | biostudies-other