Future Directions: Phase III Cooperative Group Trials

Author(s):  
Joseph R. Kelley ◽  
Douglas W. Arthur
Author(s):  
Diane F. Hale ◽  
Timothy J. Vreeland ◽  
George E. Peoples

Cancer vaccines have the potential to provide a nontoxic treatment for the prevention of cancer recurrence in the adjuvant setting. Many cancer vaccines have been tested in multiple phase III trials with minimal success. However, through these failed clinical trials, we have learned that the ideal setting for vaccine therapy is the adjuvant setting. Also, we have learned important lessons about patient selection to maximize the probability of success. This article will highlight some of the successes, our trial results in the adjuvant setting, and future directions.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2617-2617
Author(s):  
Richard Aplenc ◽  
Brian T. Fisher ◽  
Lillian Sung ◽  
Ron Keren ◽  
Todd A. Alonzo ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2617 Background: National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative oncology group trials have improved overall survival for children with cancer from 10% to 85%, and have set standards of care for adults with malignancies. However, the lack of data on resource utilization and treatment costs of patients on cooperative group trials is a critical limitation particularly in the present economic climate. To address this important knowledge gap, we merged data from the Children's Oncology Group (COG) AAML0531 Phase III trial for de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) data base to determine resource utilization and inpatient treatment costs for the overall trial and by treatment arm. Methods: 1022 eligible patients without trisomy-21 enrolled on AAML0531 were randomized to standard chemotherapy plus gemtuzumab (GMTZ) or standard chemotherapy (no GMTZ). Patients enrolled at 43 free standing pediatric hospitals in PHIS had COG and PHIS data merged by a probabilistic algorithm using center, ICD9 code for AML (205.xx), and date of birth. Once merged, resource utilization and cost data were analyzed for the first Induction chemotherapy course based on PHIS data. Cost data were estimated using standardized costs determined from a validated master costing index. Results: Of 416 patients enrolled on the Phase III COG trial at PHIS centers, 392 (94%) were successfully matched. Of the 392 matched patients, 378 (96%) had inpatient PHIS data available beginning at date of study enrollment and 259 (66%) had cost data available. Patients with and without available data did not differ in demographic characteristics. Daily blood product usage is illustrated in Figure 1. Patients receiving GMTZ required a significantly greater number of platelet transfusions per 100 hospital days (26.4 vs 22.1, p = 0.02), but fewer red cell transfusions (15.8 vs 19.2, p = 0.04). Hemostatic factor transfusions did not differ significantly between treatment arms. Table 1 presents mean number of antibiotic, antifungal and antiviral exposures per 100 hospital days. On average, patients received a total of 2.3 antibiotic and antifungal medication exposures for each hospital day during the first hospitalization. Antibiotic and antifungal use did not differ significantly by treatment arm. Median cost of Induction I did not differ by treatment arm: $98,324 (GMTZ) vs $93,846 (no GMTZ), p = 0.45. However, treatment costs increased significantly by age categories of 0–1, 1–9, 10–19, and greater than 19 years: $71,859, $87,171, $107,071, and $197,614, p = 0.0003. No cost differences by gender or race/ethnicity were observed. Conclusions: To our knowledge, these are the first data demonstrating that patients enrolled on a NCI-funded cooperative group oncology trial can be identified in an administrative data set, and that the supportive care resources utilization and treatment cost data can be analyzed by treatment arm and other patient characteristics. For AAML0531, these data demonstrate a significant difference in platelet and red cell transfusions between study arms and a significantly increasing treatment costs by age category. Additional work is ongoing to include all treatment courses in the resource utilization and cost analyses, to determine the drivers of total hospital costs, and to correlate resource utilization with reported adverse events. Such data will provide investigators, clinicians, and others with accurate estimates of the changes in resources and costs needed to treat pediatric patients with GMTZ. Furthermore, this approach should be broadly applicable to other pediatric and adult cooperative group oncology trials. Disclosures: Hall: CHCA: Employment. Bertoch:CHCA: Employment.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9581-9581
Author(s):  
Blase N. Polite ◽  
Jacob B Allred ◽  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
Toni Marie Cipriano ◽  
Constance Cirrincione ◽  
...  

9581 Background: Previous metastatic breast cancer trials have shown lower overall survival among African American (AA) women. Studies have also shown links between higher comorbidities and lower levels of social support and survival. Whether these factors differ by race and ethnicity is not known. Methods: Breast cancer patients enrolling in a phase III cooperative group metastatic breast cancer trial completed a self-administered survey measuring psychosocial and socio-demographic factors and comorbidities. Results were analyzed by self-identified race/ethnicity and evaluated by other measured variables. Results: 703 out of 799 patients completed the survey (88%). Questions were answered by greater than 95% of participants. The table shows differences broken down by Race/Ethnicity. AA and Hispanic (H) patients were more likely to have trouble paying for medications and have incomes less than 15K per year. AA were less likely to be married, and had lower levels of social support. Differences in income did not mediate these social support differences. Marital status did not mediate lower social support for AA (p=0.79) but did so for whites (p<0.001) Conclusions: Compliance with the questionnaire was quite high. Differences in social support by race were apparent and were mediated by different factors according to race. Future efforts will analyze the impact of these factors on survival and as mediators for potential racial and ethnic differences in survival. [Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 1761-1766 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler ◽  
Steven K. Cheng ◽  
Joshua S. Crites ◽  
Lori B. Ferranti ◽  
...  

Purpose To examine the processes and document the calendar time required for the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) to evaluate and approve phase III clinical trials. Methods Process steps were documented by (1) interviewing CTEP and CIRB staff regarding the steps required to activate a trial from initial concept submission to trial activation by a cooperative group, (2) reviewing standard operating procedures, and (3) inspecting trial records and documents for selected trials to identify any additional steps. Calendar time was collected from initial concept submission to activation using retrospective data from the CTEP Protocol and Information Office. Results At least 296 distinct processes are required for phase III trial activation: at least 239 working steps, 52 major decision points, 20 processing loops, and 11 stopping points. Of the 195 trials activated during the January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, study period, a sample of 167 (85.6%) was used for gathering timing data. Median calendar days from initial formal concept submission to CTEP to trial activation by a cooperative group was 602 days (interquartile range, 454 to 861 days). This time has not significantly changed over the past 8 years. There is a high variation in the time required to activate a clinical trial. Conclusion Because of their complexity, the overall development time for phase III clinical trials is lengthy, process laden, and highly variable. To streamline the process, a solution must be sought that includes all parties involved in developing trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document