Pre-clinical animal models are poor predictors of human toxicities in phase 1 oncology clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Our objective was to determine the correlation between preclinical toxicity found in animal models (mouse, rat, dog and monkey) and clinical toxicity reported in patients participating in Phase 1 oncology clinical trials.Methods
We obtained from two major early-Phase clinical trial centres, preclinical toxicities from investigational brochures and clinical toxicities from published Phase 1 trials for 108 drugs, including small molecules, biologics and conjugates. Toxicities were categorised according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Human toxicities were also categorised based on their reported clinical grade (severity). Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated to determine the probability that clinical studies would/would not show a particular toxicity category given that it was seen in preclinical toxicology analysis. Statistical analyses also included kappa statistics, and Matthews (MCC) and Spearman correlation coefficients.Results
Overall, animal toxicity did not show strong correlation with human toxicity, with a median PPV of 0.65 and NPV of 0.50. Similar results were obtained based on kappa statistics and MCC.Conclusions
There is an urgent need to assess more novel approaches to the type and conduct of preclinical toxicity studies in an effort to provide better predictive value for human investigation.
SUBMITTER: Atkins JT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7652903 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite stringent eligibility criteria for trial participation, early discontinuation often occurs in phase I trials. To better identify patients unlikely to benefit from phase I trials, we investigated predictors for early trial discontinuation. Data from 415 patients with solid tumors who participated in 66 trials were pooled for the current analysis. Early trial discontinuation was defined as (i) trial discontinuation within 28 days after start of treatment or (ii) discontinuation before administration of the first dosage in eligible patients. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors for early trial discontinuation. Eighty-two participants (20%) demonstrated early trial discontinuation. Baseline sodium level below the lower limit of normal (OR = 2.95, 95%CI = 1.27-6.84), elevated alkaline phosphatase level > 2.5 times the upper limit of normal (OR = 2.72, 95%CI = 1.49-4.99), performance score ≥ 1 (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.03-4.19) and opioid use (OR = 1.82, 95%CI = 1.07-3.08) were independent predictors for early trial discontinuation. Almost 50% of the patients with hyponatremia and all four patients in whom all four predictors were present together discontinued the trial early. Hyponatremia, elevated alkaline phosphatase level, performance score ≥ 1 and opioid use were identified as significant predictors for early trial discontinuation. Hyponatremia was the strongest predictor and deserves consideration for inclusion in eligibility criteria for future trials.
| S-EPMC8151105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aims of Phase 1 trials in oncology have broadened considerably from simply demonstrating that the agent/regimen of interest is well tolerated in a relatively heterogeneous patient population to addressing multiple objectives under the heading of early-phase trials and, if possible, obtaining reliable evidence regarding clinical activity to lead to drug approvals via the Accelerated Approval approach or Breakthrough Therapy designation in cases where the tumours are rare, prognosis is poor or where there might be an unmet therapeutic need. Constructing a Phase 1 design that can address multiple objectives within the context of a single trial is not simple. Randomisation can play an important role, but carrying out such randomisation according to the principles of equipoise is a significant challenge in the Phase 1 setting. If the emerging data are not sufficient to definitively address the aims early on, then a proper design can reduce biases, enhance interpretability, and maximise information so that the Phase 1 data can be more compelling. This article outlines objectives and design considerations that need to be adhered to in order to respect ethical and scientific principles required for research in human subjects in early phase clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8476627 | 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: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:Patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials has traditionally been limited to an equal distribution between cases and controls, however recently some clinical trials have utilized an unequal distribution between the case and control arms. Trends and proportion of phase 3 cancer clinical trials that have an unequal allocation between the years 2010 and 2019 were studied from data extracted from clinicaltrials.gov. 323 trials with two arms and 35 trials with 3 arms were identified as randomized control trials with the primary purpose of a cancer-related treatment that provided allocation data. Amongst the trials with two arms, 238 trials had equal allocation and 85 trials had unequal allocation. Therefore, cancer clinical trials with unequal allocation represent about one in four 2-arm phase 3 trials. Amongst the eligible trials with three arms, 26 trials had equal allocation and 9 trials had unequal allocation. There was no significant difference in the annual proportion of trials with unequal allocation from 2010 to 2019. The categories of cancer which had the highest number of unequally allotted two-arm clinical trials were: gastrointestinal, breast, and genitourinary malignancies. This shift may represent a new trend in clinical trial design to help enhance closer monitoring of adverse events despite higher costs and lower statistical power attached to this method.
| S-EPMC8332855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith numerous and fast approvals of different agents including immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, immunotherapy is now an established form of cancer treatment. These agents have demonstrated impressive clinical activity across many tumor types, but also revealed different toxicity profiles and mechanisms of action. The classic assumptions imposed by cytotoxic agents may no longer be applicable, requiring new strategies for dose selection and trial design.DescriptionThis main goal of this article is to summarize and highlight main challenges of early-phase study design of immunotherapies from a statistical perspective. We compared the underlying toxicity and efficacy assumptions of cytotoxic versus immune-oncology agents, proposed novel endpoints to be included in the dose-selection process, and reviewed design considerations to be considered for early-phase trials. When available, references to software and/or web-based applications were also provided to ease the implementation. Throughout the paper, concrete examples from completed (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or ongoing trials were used to motivate the main ideas including recommendation of alternative designs.ConclusionFurther advances in the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies will require new approaches that include redefining the optimal dose to be carried forward in later phases, incorporating additional endpoints in the dose selection process (PK, PD, immune-based biomarkers), developing personalized biomarker profiles, or testing drug combination therapies to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity.
| S-EPMC6103998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Even though chemotherapy and immunotherapy emerged to limit continual and unregulated proliferation of cancer cells, currently available therapeutic agents are associated with high toxicity levels and low success rates. Additionally, ongoing multi-targeted therapies are limited only for few carcinogenesis pathways, due to continually emerging and evolving mutations of proto-oncogenes and tumor-suppressive genes. CRISPR/Cas9, as a specific gene-editing tool, is used to correct causative mutations with minimal toxicity, but is also employed as an adjuvant to immunotherapy to achieve a more robust immunological response. Some of the most critical limitations of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology include off-target mutations, resulting in nonspecific restrictions of DNA upstream of the Protospacer Adjacent Motifs (PAM), ethical agreements, and the lack of a scientific consensus aiming at risk evaluation. Currently, CRISPR/Cas9 is tested on animal models to enhance genome editing specificity and induce a stronger anti-tumor response. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials use the CRISPR/Cas9 system in immune cells to modify genomes in a target-specific manner. Recently, error-free in vitro systems have been engineered to overcome limitations of this gene-editing system. The aim of the article is to present the knowledge concerning the use of CRISPR Cas9 technique in targeting treatment-resistant cancers. Additionally, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 is aided as an emerging supplementation of immunotherapy, currently used in experimental oncology. Demonstrating further, applications and advances of the CRISPR/Cas9 technique are presented in animal models and human clinical trials. Concluding, an overview of the limitations of the gene-editing tool is proffered.
| S-EPMC7463827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extensive evidence from both animal model and human research indicates that glucocorticoid hormones are crucially involved in modulating memory performance. Glucocorticoids, which are released during stressful or emotionally arousing experiences, enhance the consolidation of new memories, including extinction memory, but reduce the retrieval of previously stored memories. These memory-modulating properties of glucocorticoids have recently received considerable interest for translational purposes because strong aversive memories lie at the core of several fear-related disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and phobias. Moreover, exposure-based psychological treatment of these disorders relies on successful fear extinction. In this review, we argue that glucocorticoid-based interventions facilitate fear extinction by reducing the retrieval of aversive memories and enhancing the consolidation of extinction memories. Several clinical trials have already indicated that glucocorticoids might be indeed helpful in the treatment of fear-related disorders.
| S-EPMC6373196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The availability of high-fidelity animal models for oncology research has grown enormously in recent years, enabling preclinical studies relevant to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer to be undertaken. This has led to increased opportunities to conduct co-clinical trials, which are studies on patients that are carried out parallel to or sequentially with animal models of cancer that mirror the biology of the patients' tumors. Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMM) are considered to be the models that best represent human disease and have high translational value. Notably, one element of co-clinical trials that still needs significant optimization is quantitative imaging. The National Cancer Institute has organized a Co-Clinical Imaging Resource Program (CIRP) network to establish best practices for co-clinical imaging and to optimize translational quantitative imaging methodologies. This overview describes the ten co-clinical trials of investigators from eleven institutions who are currently supported by the CIRP initiative and are members of the Animal Models and Co-clinical Trials (AMCT) Working Group. Each team describes their corresponding clinical trial, type of cancer targeted, rationale for choice of animal models, therapy, and imaging modalities. The strengths and weaknesses of the co-clinical trial design and the challenges encountered are considered. The rich research resources generated by the members of the AMCT Working Group will benefit the broad research community and improve the quality and translational impact of imaging in co-clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10037611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.MethodsOncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.ResultsEighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.ConclusionWhile COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.
| S-EPMC10501237 | biostudies-literature