Dataset Information

The National Clinical Trials Network: Conducting Successful Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Rare Cancers.

ABSTRACT: Rare cancers account for 27% of neoplasms diagnosed each year, and 25% of cancer-related deaths in the United States. However, rare cancers show some of the highest response rates to targeted therapies, probably due to identification of oncogenic drivers with little interpatient variability. Although the low incidence of rare cancers makes large-scale randomized trials involving single histologies difficult to perform, drugs have been successfully developed in rare cancers using clinical trial designs that combine microscopic histologies. Such trials are being pursued within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), which possesses unique qualifications to perform widespread molecular screening of tumors for patient enrollment onto therapeutic clinical trials. When larger clinical trials are needed to determine optimum treatment strategies in rare cancers, the NCTN's broad reach in North America and internationally, and their ability to partner with both United States-based and international research organizations, can make these challenging studies feasible.

SUBMITTER: Schott AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4673983 | biostudies-other | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The National Clinical Trials Network: Conducting Successful Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Rare Cancers.

Schott Anne F AF Welch John J JJ Verschraegen Claire F CF Kurzrock Razelle R

Seminars in oncology 20150710 5

Rare cancers account for 27% of neoplasms diagnosed each year, and 25% of cancer-related deaths in the United States. However, rare cancers show some of the highest response rates to targeted therapies, probably due to identification of oncogenic drivers with little interpatient variability. Although the low incidence of rare cancers makes large-scale randomized trials involving single histologies difficult to perform, drugs have been successfully developed in rare cancers using clinical trial d ...[more]

PMID: 26433554

Similar Datasets

Project description:The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search.We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as "pivotal trials" for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17-1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30-8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24-7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15-1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials.Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished >/= 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.

Project description:Background: Rare cancers occur with an incidence of no more than six cases per 100,000 people according to the definition used by the Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe project. For a variety of reasons (low prevalence, cytotoxicity), it is challenging to perform the necessary clinical studies to investigate the safety and efficacy of investigational medicines against such rare malignancies, reformulating even at the earliest stages of the drug development process. This article investigates the differences between phase I rare cancer trials performed in commercial (companies) and non-commercial settings (academic hospitals). Materials and Methods: The differences were explored through the conduct of semi-structured interviews with three different stakeholder groups: representatives from academia (n = 7), representatives from companies (n = 4) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 4). All the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method. Results: According to the interviewees, the academic and commercial stakeholders collaborate in the majority of phase I rare cancer trials. In general, the commercial partner finances the trial, whereas academia is responsible for the execution of the study procedures. The average cost of undertaking these trials is difficult to estimate because it depends on what is specifically requested during the trial. The 3 + 3 study design remains the most widely used design and the use of expansion cohorts is controversial. With regard to the regulatory aspects of phase I rare cancer trials, it was expressed that a good regulatory framework facilitates the conduct of these studies, but that increased regulation and oversight also has drawbacks, e.g., differences in standards between different ethics committees, over interpretation of the rules, insufficient availability of qualified personnel and higher workloads. The patient organization representatives claimed that patients experience no differences in terms of accommodation, compensation and paperwork between the academic and commercial settings or the degree of follow-up. They also believed that the direct input of patients can bring added value to such studies not only with regard to the recruitment process and the feasibility of the study but also the legibility of the informed consent forms. Conclusion: The growing need for first-in-man trials in rare malignancies needs to be highlighted, as difficult as they are to undertake and to co-develop, not only because rare cancer patients deserve an appropriate treatment, but also because these medicines represent the future of cancer therapy in the precision medicine era. Cooperation of commercial and academic sites are needed. Patient organizations need to be educated to take part in this process.

Project description:Most tobacco-focused clinical trials are based on locally conducted studies that face significant challenges to implementation and successful execution. These challenges include the need for large, diverse, yet still representative study samples. This often means a protracted, costly, and inefficient recruitment process. Multisite clinical trials can overcome some of these hurdles but incur their own unique challenges. With recent advances in mobile health and digital technologies, there is now a promising alternative: Remote Trials. These trials are led and coordinated by a local investigative team, but are based remotely, within a given community, state, or even nation. The remote approach affords many of the benefits of multisite trials (more efficient recruitment of larger study samples) without the same barriers (cost, multisite management, and regulatory hurdles). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global health pandemic has resulted in rapid requirements to shift ongoing clinical trials to remote delivery and assessment platforms, making methods for the conduct of remote trials even more timely. The purpose of the present review is to provide an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials as well as illustrative examples of how these methods have been implemented across recently completed and ongoing tobacco studies. We focus on key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline including remote: (1) study recruitment and screening, (2) informed consent, (3) assessment, (4) biomarker collection, and (5) medication adherence monitoring. Implications With recent advances in mobile health and digital technologies, remote trials now offer a promising alternative to traditional in-person clinical trials. Remote trials afford expedient recruitment of large, demographically representative study samples, without undo burden to a research team. The present review provides an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials across key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline.

Project description:IntroductionCare for head and neck cancers is complex in particular for the rare ones. Knowledge is limited and histological heterogeneity adds complexity to the rarity. There is a wide consensus that to support clinical research on rare cancer, clinical registries should be developed within networks specializing in rare cancers. In the EU, a unique opportunity is provided by the European Reference Networks (ERN). The ERN EURACAN is dedicated to rare adults solid cancers, here we present the protocol of the EURACAN registry on rare head and neck cancers (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05483374).Study designRegistry-based cohort study including only people with rare head and neck cancers.Objectivesto help describe the natural history of rare head and neck cancers;to evaluate factors that influence prognosis;to assess treatment effectiveness;to measure indicators of quality of care.MethodsSettings and participants It is an hospital based registry established in hospitals with expertise in head and neck cancers. Only adult patients with epithelial tumours of nasopharynx; nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses; salivary gland cancer in large and small salivary glands; and middle ear will be included in the registry. This registry won't select a sample of patients. Each patient in the facility who meets the above mentioned inclusion criteria will be followed prospectively and longitudinally with follow-up at cancer progression and / or cancer relapse or patient death. It is a secondary use of data which will be collected from the clinical records. The data collected for the registry will not entail further examinations or admissions to the facility and/or additional appointments to those normally provided for the patient follow-up. Variables Data will be collected on patient characteristics (eg. patient demographics, lifestyle, medical history, health status); exposure data (eg. disease, procedures, treatments of interest) and outcomes (e.g. survival, progression, progression-free survival, etc.). In addition, data on potential confounders (e.g. comorbidity; functional status etc.) will be also collected. Statistical methods The data analyses will include descriptive statistics showing patterns of patients' and cancers' variables and indicators describing the quality of care. Multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model and Hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause or cause specific mortality will be used to determine independent predictors of overall survival, recurrence etc. Variables to include in the multivariable regression model will be selected based on the results of univariable analysis. The role of confounding or effect modifiers will be evaluated using stratified analysis or sensitivity analysis. To assess treatment effectiveness, multivariable models with propensity score adjustment and progression-free survival will be performed. Adequate statistical (eg. marginal structural model) methods will be used if time-varying treatments/confounders and confounding by indication (selective prescribing) will be present.ResultsThe registry initiated recruiting in May 2022. The estimated completion date is December 2030 upon agreement on the achievement of all the registry objectives. As of October 2022, the registry is recruiting. There will be a risk of limited representativeness due to the hospital-based nature of the registry and to the fact that hospital contributing to the registry are expert centres for these rare cancers. Clinical Follow-up could also be an issue but active search of the life status of the patients will be guaranteed.

Dataset Information

The National Clinical Trials Network: Conducting Successful Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Rare Cancers.

Publications

The National Clinical Trials Network: Conducting Successful Clinical Trials of New Therapies for Rare Cancers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets