scholarly journals Treating non-responders: pitfalls and implications for cancer immunotherapy trial design

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenzhen Xu ◽  
Yongsoek Park ◽  
Ke Liu ◽  
Bin Zhu
2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan F. Kruger ◽  
Bruno L. Cadilha ◽  
Michael Bergwelt‐Baildon ◽  
Stefan Endres ◽  
Sebastian Kobold

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 1678-1679 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M. Connell ◽  
S. Raby ◽  
I. Beh ◽  
T.R. Flint ◽  
E.H. Williams ◽  
...  

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2908
Author(s):  
Constantin N. Baxevanis ◽  
Sotirios P. Fortis ◽  
Alexandros Ardavanis ◽  
Sonia A. Perez

Therapeutic cancer vaccines have been at the forefront of cancer immunotherapy for more than 20 years, with promising results in phase I and—in some cases—phase II clinical trials, but with failures in large phase III studies. After dozens of clinical studies, only Dendreon’s dendritic cell vaccine Sipuleucel-T has succeeded in receiving US FDA approval for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Although scientists working on cancer immunotherapy feel that this is an essential breakthrough for the field, they still expect that new vaccine regimens will yield better clinical benefits compared to the four months prolonged median overall survival (OS) Sipuleucel-T demonstrated in the IMPACT phase III clinical trial. Clinical development of cancer vaccines has been unsuccessful due to failures either in randomized phase II or—even worse—phase III trials. Thus, rigorous re-evaluation of these trials is urgently required in order to redefine aspects and optimize the benefits offered by therapeutic cancer vaccines. The scope of this review is to provide to the reader our thoughts on the key challenges in maximizing the therapeutic potentials of cancer vaccines, with a special focus on issues that touch upon clinical trial design.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen H.A. Creemers ◽  
Kit C.B. Roes ◽  
Niven Mehra ◽  
Carl G. Figdor ◽  
I. Jolanda M. de Vries ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackgroundLate-stage cancer immunotherapy trials strive to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of novel immunotherapies, which is leading to exceptional responses and long-term survival in subsets of patients. To establish the clinical efficacy of an immunotherapy, it is critical to adjust the trial’s design to the expected immunotherapy-specific response patterns.MethodsIn silico cancer immunotherapy trials are virtual clinical trials that simulate the kinetics and outcome of immunotherapy depending on the type and treatment schedule. We used an ordinary differential equation model to simulate (1) cellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment, (2) translates these into disease courses in patients, and (3) assemble populations of virtual patients to simulate in silico late-stage immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or combination trials. We predict trial outcomes and investigate how therapy-specific response patterns affect the probability of their success.ResultsIn silico cancer immunotherapy trials reveal that immunotherapy-derived survival kinetics – such as delayed curve separation and plateauing curve of the treatment arm – arise naturally due to biological interactions in the tumor microenvironment. In silico clinical trials are capable of translating these biological interactions into survival kinetics. Considering four aspects of clinical trial design – sample size calculations, endpoint and randomization rate selection, and interim analysis planning – we illustrate that failing to consider such distinctive response patterns can significantly reduce the power of novel immunotherapy trials.ConclusionIn silico trials have three significant implications for immuno-oncology. First, they provide an economical approach to verify the robustness of biological assumptions underlying an immunotherapy trial and help to scrutinize its design. Second, the biological basis of these trials facilitates and encourages communication between biomedical researchers, doctors, and trialists. Third, its application as an educational tool can illustrate design principles to scientists in training, contributing to improved designs and higher success rates of future immunotherapy trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document