Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
For research with human participants to be ethical, risk must be in a favorable balance with potential benefits. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for pediatric cancer phase II trials testing targeted therapies.Objective
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of preliminary efficacy and safety profiles of phase II targeted therapy clinical trials in pediatric oncology.Methods
Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020146491). We searched EMBASE and PubMed for phase II pediatric cancer trials testing targeted agents. We included solid and hematological malignancy studies published between 1 January, 2015 and 27 February, 2020. We measured risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, and benefit by response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results
We identified 34 clinical trials (1202 patients) that met our eligibility criteria. The pooled overall response rate was 24.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5-34.2) and was lower in solid tumors, 6.4% (95% CI 3.2-9.6), compared with hematological malignancies, 55.1% (95% CI 35.9-74.3); p < 0.001. The overall fatal drug-related (grade 5) adverse event rate was 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-2.5), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 adverse event rate per person was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.78).Conclusions
We provide an estimate for the risks and benefits of participation in pediatric phase II cancer trials. These data may be used as an empirical basis for informed communication about benefits and burdens in pediatric oncology research.
SUBMITTER: Strzebonska K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266705 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as "small sample size, non?randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested." We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting. CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.
| S-EPMC5819765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe examined the impact of race on the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) and final approved doses (FAD) of single-agent molecular-targeted agents (MTA) in North America/Europe (NA/EU) and Asia.MethodsWe searched PubMed and regulatory databases to identify targeted drugs approved globally and compared their FAD and MTD in corresponding phase I/II studies conducted separately in NA/EU and Asia. To evaluate this further, we conducted parallel, prospective, first-in-human studies of DS-7423, a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours in the US and Japan. We pooled and compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), toxicity, and efficacy between these populations.Results17 MTA were approved in NA/EU and Asia from 2001 to 2015. Recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were identical across races in 14 of 17 (80%) studies and differences were not clinically meaningful. FAD were identical across all regions. 42 and 27 patients from US and Japan, respectively, were enrolled in the phase I studies of DS-7423. Despite differences in race, body weight, and body mass index, the RP2D were 240 mg/day with no differences in toxicities, PK, PD, or efficacy.ConclusionsConducting separate clinical trials of single-agent MTA in Caucasian and Asian populations may be redundant.
| S-EPMC6008299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Phase II clinical studies screen for treatment regimens that improve patient care, but screening combination regimens is especially challenging. We hypothesized that recognized flaws of single-arm trials could be magnified in combination treatment studies, leading to many reported positive phase II trials but with a low fraction resulting in practice-changing phase III trials.We searched medline and identified 363 combination chemotherapy clinical trials published in 2001 and 2002. Studies were rated as positive, negative, or inconclusive based on a standardized review of abstract and text. The Web of Science Index (Thomson Reuters, NY, NY) was searched for all articles published between January 2003 and October 2007 that cited at least one of these 363 published trials.Of 363 published phase II combination chemotherapy trials, 262 (72%) were declared to be positive. Among 3,760 unique subsequent citing papers, 20 reported randomized phase III trials of the same combination in the same disease as the source paper, and 10 of these resulted in improved standards of care. Estimating from these data, the likelihood that a published, positive phase II combination chemotherapy trial will result in a subsequent trial showing an improvement in standard of care within five years was 0.038 (95% confidence interval, 0.016-0.064).The contributory value of combination chemotherapy phase II trials done by 2001-2002 standards is low despite the participation of more than 16,000 subjects. Future phase II studies of combination regimens require better methods to screen for treatments most likely to improve standards of care.
| S-EPMC2970723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is significant debate over whether phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are ethical and approvable. We thus surveyed IRB members to answer four questions. First, do IRB members think the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks? Second, do they think these trials are ethically appropriate? Third, do they think these trials are approvable? Fourth, how do the views of IRB members on the first two questions compare to the views of the US public? Of the 80 respondents who answered the test questions correctly, 18.8% stated that the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials outweigh the risks, 32.5% stated that the potential medical benefits and risks are about equal, and 48.8% stated that the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits. Compared to the general public, IRB members were significantly more likely to think the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits (p = 0.01). Finally, 68.8% of IRB members indicated that average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable, and 56.3% indicated that these trials are appropriate in children. These findings suggest two-thirds of IRB members believe average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable. Yet, almost half regard the risks as outweighing the potential medical benefits and almost half think these trials are inappropriate. These findings raise important questions regarding why IRB members and the general public evaluate the same risk/benefit profile differently, and whether it is possible to reconcile the two perspectives.
| S-EPMC9630167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:With 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. DESCRIPTION:This 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. CONCLUSION:Further 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:BackgroundNeoadjuvant treatment has proven beneficial for many gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, but no phase III trials have been completed examining this approach in pancreatic cancer. This meta-analysis examines the best available phase II trials using neoadjuvant treatment for resectable and borderline/unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.MethodsPhase II trials were identified using a MEDLINE search, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1960 to July 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Patients with initially resectable tumors (group A), and patients with borderline/unresectable tumors (group B). Primary outcome measures were rate of resection and survival. Pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies.ResultsA total of 14 phase II clinical trials including 536 patients were analyzed. After treatment, resectability was 65.8% (95% CI, 55.4-75.6%) compared with 31.6% in group B (95% CI, 14.0-52.5%). A partial response was observed in patients with borderline/unresectable tumors; 31.8 (95% CI, 24.2-39.8%) in group B and 9.5% (95% CI, 2.9-19.4%) in group A (P = .003). Progressive disease was seen in 17.0% (95% CI, 11.9-22.7) of patients in group A versus 21.8% (95% CI, 10.1-36.5%) in group B (P = .006). Median survival in resected patients was 23 months for group A and 22 months for group B.ConclusionNeoadjuvant treatment seems to have some activity in patients with borderline/unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nearly one third of tumors initially deemed marginal for operative intervention were able to be ultimately resected after treatment. Until more effective targeted chemotherapeutics are developed, the only group of patients with pancreatic cancer that may benefit from neoadjuvant treatment are those with locally advanced disease.
| S-EPMC3164966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pediatric phase I oncology trials have historically focused on safety and toxicity, with objective response rates (ORRs) <10%. Recently, with an emphasis on targeted approaches, response rates may have changed. We analyzed outcomes of recent phase I pediatric oncology trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials published in 2012-2017, identified through PubMed and EMBASE searches conducted on March 14, 2018. Selection criteria included full-text articles with a pediatric population, cancer diagnosis, and a dose escalation schema. Each publication was evaluated for patient characteristics, therapy type, trial design, toxicity, and response. RESULTS:Of 3,431 citations, 109 studies (2,713 patients) met eligibility criteria. Of these, 78 (72%) trials incorporated targeted therapies. Median age at enrollment/trial was 11?years (range 3-21?years). There were 2,471 patients (91%) evaluable for toxicity, of whom 300 (12.1%) experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Of 2,143 patients evaluable for response, 327 (15.3%) demonstrated an objective response. Forty-three (39%) trials had no objective responses. Nineteen trials (17%) had an ORR >25%, of which 11 were targeted trials and 8 were combination cytotoxic trials. Targeted trials demonstrated a lower DLT rate compared with cytotoxic trials (10.6% vs. 14.7%; p = .003) with similar ORRs (15.0% vs. 15.9%; p = .58). CONCLUSION:Pediatric oncology phase I trials in the current treatment era have an acceptable DLT rate and a pooled ORR of 15.3%. A subset of trials with target-specific enrollment or combination cytotoxic therapies showed high response rates, highlighting the importance of these strategies in early phase trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Enrollment in phase I oncology trials is crucial for development of novel therapies. This systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials provides an assessment of outcomes of phase I trials in children, with a specific focus on the impact of targeted therapies. These data may aid in evaluating the landscape of current phase I options for patients and enable more informed communication regarding risk and benefit of phase I clinical trial participation. The results also suggest that, in the current treatment era, there is a rationale to increase earlier access to targeted therapy trials for this refractory patient population.
| S-EPMC7288652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Existing statistical methodology on dose finding for combination chemotherapies has focused on toxicity considerations alone in finding a maximum tolerated dose combination to recommend for further testing of efficacy in a phase II setting. Recently, there has been increasing interest in integrating phase I and phase II trials in order to facilitate drug development. In this article, we propose a new adaptive phase I/II method for dual-agent combinations that takes into account both toxicity and efficacy after each cohort inclusion. The primary objective, both within and at the conclusion of the trial, becomes finding a single dose combination with an acceptable level of toxicity that maximizes efficacious response. We assume that there exist monotone dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships among doses of one agent when the dose of other agent is fixed. We perform extensive simulation studies that demonstrate the operating characteristics of our proposed approach, and we compare simulated results to existing methodology in phase I/II design for combinations of agents.
| S-EPMC4258389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) is a rare, but devastating disease. Despite multimodal approaches combining surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy, ATC is associated with a dire prognosis, with a median overall survival of only three to ten months. Novel treatments are thus urgently needed. Recent efforts towards the characterization of the molecular landscape of ATC have led to the identification of pro-oncogenic targetable alterations, lending promise for novel targeted therapeutic approaches. This systematic review summarizes the results of phase II clinical trials of targeted therapy in ATC, providing an overview of efficacy and safety profiles. The majority of trials to date have consisted of small single-arm studies and have presented modest results. However, only a minority of trials have selected or stratified patients by molecular alterations. In the setting of BRAF V600E mutated ATC, dabrafenib/trametinib combination therapy and vemurafenib monotherapy have both demonstrated efficacy. Everolimus has furthermore shown promising results in patients with PI3K/mTOR/AKT pathway alterations. These studies underscore the importance of molecular profiling of tumors for appropriate patient selection and determination of genomic correlates of response. Clinical trials are underway testing additional targeted therapies as monotherapy, or as a part of multimodal treatment, and in combination with immunotherapy.
| S-EPMC6678800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe statistical plan of a phase II trial should balance minimizing the premature termination of potentially beneficial therapies (i.e. false negatives) and the further, costly testing of ineffective drugs (i.e. false positives). We sought to examine the methodology, reporting, and bias in the interpretation of outcomes of phase II oncology trials in recent years.Materials and methodsIn a retrospective cross-sectional analysis, we reviewed all full-length articles published on PubMed from 1 January 2021 to 20 June 2022. We searched for data regarding the sample size calculation (number, α value, power, and expected effect size), the primary and secondary outcomes and results, and the authors' conclusion of the study.ResultsAbout 5.4% of studies (n = 10) used a statistical power that was inferior to 80%, and 16.7% (n = 34) did not indicate the level of power for the sample size calculation. Approximately 16.7% (n = 31) of studies used a one-sided α level of ≤0.025; 17.7% (n = 33) of studies used a predefined threshold (no comparator effect size or difference between groups) to determine the sample size for efficacy. The percentage of studies with a positive authors' conclusion but not meeting the primary endpoint, or the endpoint was equivocal, was 27.4% (n = 51).ConclusionMany randomized phase II studies in oncology failed to report essential data for determining sample size calculations, many did not actually use a comparator to determine efficacy even though the studies were randomized, and many had positive conclusions even though the results were indeterminate or the primary endpoint was not met.
| S-EPMC10024120 | biostudies-literature