Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1062-1072 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Daugherty ◽  
M J Ratain ◽  
E Grochowski ◽  
C Stocking ◽  
E Kodish ◽  
...  

PURPOSE In an attempt to understand some of the complex issues related to the participation of cancer patients in phase I trials, and the perceptions of patients toward these trials, we conducted a pilot survey study of 30 cancer patients who had given informed consent to participate in a phase I trial at our institution. Concurrently, the oncologists identified by the surveyed patients as responsible for their care were surveyed as well. PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-seven of 30 consecutive patients agreed to and completed the survey. Patients were surveyed before they received any investigational agents. Eighteen oncologists participated in this survey study. RESULTS Eighty-five percent of patients decided to participate in a phase I trial for reasons of possible therapeutic benefit, 11% because of advice/trust of physicians, and 4% because of family pressures. Ninety-three percent said that they understood all (33%) or most (60%) of the information provided about the trials in which they had decided to participate. Only 33% were able to state the purpose of the trial in which they were participating, with patients able to state the purpose of phase I trials being more educated (P = .01). Surveyed oncologists had wide-ranging beliefs regarding expectations of possible benefits and toxicities for their patients participating in phase I trials. CONCLUSION Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials are strongly motivated by the hope of therapeutic benefit. Altruistic feelings appear to have a limited and inconsequential role in motivating patients to participate in these trials. Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials appear to have an adequate self-perceived knowledge of the risks of investigational agents. However, only a minority of patients appear to have an adequate understanding of the purpose of phase I trials as dose-escalation/dose-determination studies.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 85-85
Author(s):  
Katrine Toubro Gad ◽  
Ulrik Niels Lassen ◽  
Paul Morten Mau Sorensen ◽  
Mette Terp Høybye ◽  
Christoffer Johansen

85 Background: While phase I trials are essential for the development of new anticancer drugs, there is a limited chance of benefitting for cancer patients participating in such trials. The information dialogue is therefore of substantial importance for providing a foundation to make a decision, and the support from relatives of potential value for the patient. This systematic review investigated patients’ prerequisites for deciding to participate in a phase I trial by summarizing the existing knowledge regarding patients’ decision-making when entering a phase I trial, and patients’ and their relatives’ perception of the information prior to enrollment. Methods: The review is based on the principles of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. A comprehensive systematic search was performed using the PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo databases and supplemented by a search for unpublished literature. Results: We identified 36 studies for inclusion in this review. When patients are offered participation in a phase I trial, information procedures as well as the patients’ individual approach influence the decision-making and the perception of the information provided. Across the studies exploring patients’ perception of information, there was a limited understanding of trial purpose and unrealistic expectations of benefit. The relatives’ perception of information remains unexplored. Evaluation of the included studies demonstrated a comprehensive risk of bias in the majority of studies. Conclusions: The information dialogue between physician and the patient concerning participation in a phase I trial seems to benefit from exact information taking account of the perspectives for each individual patient as well as the need for further discussion of trial. While relatives intuitively function as resources for patients entering a phase I trial, this topic is still not investigated.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1146-1146
Author(s):  
Ehsan Malek ◽  
Caner Saygin ◽  
Rebecca Ye ◽  
Byung-gyu Kim ◽  
Fahrettin Covut ◽  
...  

Abstract The recent number of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is unprecedented.Four new therapeutic agents,panobinostat,daratumumab,elotuzumab, andixazomibwere approved in 2015 matching the record of seven new-agents and 16 regulatory approvals during the past 12 years. New therapies have dramatically improved life expectancy for patients with MM. The therapeutic benefit of newer agents, combined with the incurable and relapse-remission nature of disease, has further propagated the interest of pharmaceuticaland academic investigations. Thus, a multitude of anti-myeloma compounds have been proposed, evaluated in pre-clinical studies and tested in phase I trials. A major hurdle to recruiting patients onto phase I oncology trials has the assumption that these trials offer low therapeutic benefit, which makes phase I trial recruitment a last resort(Simon et al. JCO, 2004).The status of MM phase I trials in the past 12 years has not been reviewed in detail. The aim of this study is to determine overall therapeutic benefit and risks forptsrecruited in phase I trials from 2004 to 2015 and to analyze the role of potential factors affecting outcomes. Methods: Phase I trials for MM conducted from 2004-2015 were identified from searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and scientific meetings (Fig. 1). Data was extracted by two independent reviewers based upon the same algorithm and significant overlap in assignment to assess inter-observer heterogeneity. Results: Trials (n=74) were selected and included a total of 2408 enrolled pts (Fig. 1). The median number of pts/trial was 29 (range: 5-84), 56% of pts male, 44% female, median age was 67 years (range: 55-71) with increasing trend toward the end of the study period. The performance status was 2 or better in all trials. 39% of the trials evaluated a single agent (excluding corticosteroids) and the remainder evaluated combination therapies (Fig. 2A). 12 (42%) trials tested small molecules and 16 (68%) used monoclonal antibodies as single agent. 90% of the trials were conducted based on 3+3 design. The proportion of industry-sponsored trials increased progressively in the study period (Fig. 2B). The ratio of the initial dose to the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was 0.29 indicating significant portion of enrolled pts were potentially undertreated, most likely due to dominance of 3+3 design. 1107 of the 2408 pts responded to the study drugs which resulted in overall response rate (ORR) of 42% (range: 0-91). Median ORR was significantly different in trials with single agent vs. combination therapy (20% vs. 40%, respectively, p-value<0.01). The Median number of prior treatment lines showed an increasing trend toward the end of the study period (Fig. 2D) that correlated inversely with response rate (Fig. 3A). The effect of number of prior lines of therapy on response rate remained significant after multivariate analysis taking age, the year of publication and ratio of initial dose to the MTD into account. There were 7 therapy-related in all studies (overall death rate: 0.4 %). Pts who participated in combination therapy phase I clinical trials had more SAEs than single agents (29% vs 16%, HR: 1.35, p-value: 0.04). Median serious adverse events (SAE) was 22% (range: 0-44) (Fig. 2C). Response rates and SAE rate were not statistically difference between the 4 periods of the study (2004-06, 2007-09, 2010-12 and 2013-15, p-value=0.3).Daratumuab,ixazomib,pomalidomide,Isatuximab,marizomib,oprozomib,filanesib,dinaciclib,venetoclax and LGH-447, had single agent anti-myeloma activity and proceeded to later phase clinical trials (Fig. 3B). Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that the therapeutic benefit for patients recruited onto MM phase I trials was significantly higher than that reported for phase I trial of all cancer types (Horstmann et al. NEJM. 2005).Our results suggest an inverse correlation between the number of prior lines of therapies and the response rate that support earlier patient entry onto phase I studies to increase the therapeutic benefit.Also, our analysis shows that despite an increase in the number of compounds tested in MM phase I trials during the past 12 years, the overall toxicity from these trials has not increased. It is also possible that less patients would be undertreated by utilizing phase I designs other than 3+3 that deliver therapeutic dosage to a larger portion of enrolled patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 2305-2312 ◽  
Author(s):  
C K Daugherty ◽  
M J Ratain ◽  
H Minami ◽  
D M Banik ◽  
N J Vogelzang ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To address the challenging ethical dilemmas created from the participation of advanced cancer patients in phase I trials, we assessed the feasibility of a clinical trial design that uses an interactive informed consent process in which patient-subjects can choose to become directly involved in decisions of dose escalation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Subjects were advanced cancer patients in the Hematology/Oncology Clinics at the University of Chicago who were eligible to participate in a phase I trial in which they underwent a three-step informed consent process that used cohort-specific consent and allowed them the option to choose their own doses of the chemotherapeutic agents under study, vinorelbine (NVB) and paclitaxel (TAX), within predetermined limits. NVB and TAX were administered in conventional 21- to 28-day cycles for two cycles while on study. Dose escalation occurred when a patient-subject chose a higher untested dose after they received information on all previously assessable patient-subjects. In addition to the phase I trial itself, a survey that consisted of structured interviews, which sought to evaluate patients' experiences with the interactive subject-choice phase I trial design and consent process, was conducted with participating subjects. The phase I trial itself sought to determine the associated toxicities of the agents under study. The survey results were compared with a similar survey of a matched control population of subjects who participated in other concurrently active conventional phase I trials at our institution. RESULTS Twenty-nine patient-subjects participated in the phase I trial, with 24 who agreed to and completed the survey interviews. Seventy-six percent of patient-subjects opted to choose their dose of the agents under study, and 28% chose the highest available doses. More than half of the patient-subjects (56%) felt some degree of comfort in being asked to choose their dose of chemotherapy, with 53% stating that being asked to choose their dose made them feel in control, fully informed, or content. However, there were no statistically significant improvements in objective measures of the informed consent process, which included surveyed subjects' stated understanding of either provided information about phase I trials and alternatives to trial participation or of the research purpose of phase I trials. By making choices, the group of patients in the interactive subject choice trial changed the size of the dose cohorts and modified the process of dose escalation in this phase I study. CONCLUSION Although complex, our innovative phase I trial design is feasible. In addition to the use of cohort-specific consent, the trial design may reduce the magnitude of many of the commonly recognized ethical dilemmas associated with this form of clinical research, which include difficulties with information provision and the understanding of possible risks and benefits of phase I trial participation, through direct subject involvement in research decision making by otherwise potentially vulnerable cancer patients.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3170-3170
Author(s):  
Ehsan Malek ◽  
Yihong Deng ◽  
Mark Eckman ◽  
Jeffrey Weldge ◽  
James J. Driscoll

Abstract Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), performed either at the time of initial diagnosis or at relapse, is considered the standard of care for younger patients (<70 years of age) with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, the optimal timing of ASCT, i.e., early transplantation versus transplant upon relapse, is under investigation (clinical trial NCT01208662). In addition, there has been an unprecedented pace of anti-myeloma compound discovery tested through phase I trials (i.e., 500% increase) during the last decade, and its timing in relation to ASCT is not clear. Further, the current perception of low therapeutic benefit from participation in phase I trials is the main obstacle for patient recruitment and makes the phase I trial a "last resort" in the overall therapeutic plan (Meropol et al. 2003). Here, we present a landscape of therapeutic benefit and toxicity of all MM phase I trials over the past decade. Also, in order to determine the optimal timing of ASCT and phase I trial we constructed a Markov model to examine two different approaches: early ASCT and subsequent phase I trial recruitment (early ASCT) vs. phase I trial recruitment before ASCT (late ASCT). Methods: The primary decision examined in this study is the timing of ASCT in relation to a phase I trial. We systematically reviewed the outcome of all MM phase I trials between 2004-2014 to build a comparable cohort for decision analysis. Response rate, adverse effects and mortality from single agents, as well as the combination of the experimental agents with immunomodulators (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are reported. Two strategies were tested through Markov modeling: early ASCT vs. late ASCT (Figure-1). The model was built using the commercially available DecisionMaker software. An annual discount rate of 3% was used for all clinical outcomes. Quality of life (QOL) information for post-ASCT and phase I trials were extracted from similar research papers. Results: Phase I systematic review: A total of 43 phase I clinical trials with 946 patients (530 males and 416 females) were included. The precipitants' median age was 60 years old. 21 trials tested single agents and the remainder were done using combination therapies (i.e., with an IMiD or PI). Median overall response rate (ORR) was 34% for all trials, 16% with single agents and 42% with combination therapy (Figure-2). 89% of trials were completed in less than a year. The therapeutic benefit of single vs. combination therapy phase I clinical trials does not show an increasing trend during the last decade (Figure-3). Patients who participated in combination therapy phase I trials had more grade III-IV toxicity than single agents (HR: 1.35, p-value: 0.04). There were only 4 patients (less than 1% of all participants) who experienced therapy-related death. Although, time from diagnosis was a predictor of response in univariate analysis, but it was not statistically correlated with response by multivariate analysis. Also, ORR was not affected by the number of prior therapies. Markov model: The discounted life expectancies for two strategies were calculated; fixed-time intervals of 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were chosen for analysis. The gains in life expectancy were the same in patients undergoing combination therapy phase I trials in early or late ASCT strategies (6.76 and 6.64, respectively; p-value: 0.21). Importantly, for patients undergoing single agent phase I therapy, early ASCT was associated with a higher life expectancy than was the strategy of delayed ASCT (7.96 vs. 6.86, respectively; p-value: 0.036). Conclusions: Taken together, our study indicates that phase I trials demonstrate a higher ORR than reported response rates from traditional chemotherapy phase I trials, i.e. 5%, Horstmann et al. 2005, even with single agents. We conclude that phase I participation should not be viewed as the "last resort". Our decision-making analysis shows that combination therapy phase I trials can be offered irrespective of ASCT. However, single agent phase I trials should be offered after ASCT for transplant-eligible patients. Figure 1. Markov decision model. A relapsed MM base case transitions after each one-month cycle to other health states. Patients could have remained in an alive state for any number of cycles without transitioning to another health state. The ASCT and Phase I states are transitory states. Figure 1. Markov decision model. A relapsed MM base case transitions after each one-month cycle to other health states. Patients could have remained in an alive state for any number of cycles without transitioning to another health state. The ASCT and Phase I states are transitory states. Figure 2. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Off Label Use: Panobinostat and Ixazomib combined in myeloma.


1997 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S249-S250 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Hartung ◽  
G. Stehle ◽  
H. Sinn ◽  
H.H. Schrenk ◽  
S. Heeger ◽  
...  

Lipids ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 962-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter B. J. Herrmann ◽  
Herbert A. Neumann ◽  
Wolfgang E. Berdel ◽  
Manfred E. Heim ◽  
Michael Fromm ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 135 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Murray ◽  
J. E. Cunningham ◽  
H. M. Brewer ◽  
M. H. Janus ◽  
D. A. Podoloff ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (24) ◽  
pp. 6160-6167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Lee ◽  
Judy Wang ◽  
Marianna Zahurak ◽  
Elske Gootjes ◽  
Henk M. Verheul ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592092679
Author(s):  
Seung Tae Kim ◽  
Jung Yong Hong ◽  
Se Hoon Park ◽  
Joon Oh Park ◽  
Young Whan Park ◽  
...  

Background: YYB101, a humanized monoclonal antibody against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), has shown safety and efficacy in vitro and in vivo. This is a first-in-human trial of this antibody. Materials and Methods: YYB101 was administered intravenously to refractory cancer patients once every 4 weeks for 1 month, and then once every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, at doses of 0.3, 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30 mg/kg, according to a 3+3 dose escalation design. Maximum tolerated dose, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were studied. HGF, MET, PD-L1, and ERK expression was evaluated for 9 of 17 patients of the expansion cohort (20 mg/kg). Results: In 39 patients enrolled, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed at 0.3 mg/kg, and the most commonly detected toxicity was generalized edema ( n = 7, 18.9%) followed by pruritis and nausea ( n = 5, 13.5%, each), fatigue, anemia, and decreased appetite ( n = 4, 10.8%, each). No patient discontinued treatment because of adverse events. YYB101 showed dose-proportional pharmacokinetics up to 30 mg/kg. Partial response in 1 (2.5%) and stable disease in 17 (43.5%) were observed. HGF, MET, PD-L1, and ERK proteins were not significant predictors for treatment response. However, serum HGF level was significantly lowered in responders upon drug administration. RNA sequencing revealed a mesenchymal signature in two long-term responders. Conclusion: YYB101 showed favorable safety and efficacy in patients with refractory solid tumors. Based on this phase I trial, a phase II study on the YYB101 + irinotecan combination in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients is planned. Conclusion: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02499224


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (29) ◽  
pp. 3229-3235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria A. Miller ◽  
Melissa Cousino ◽  
Angela C. Leek ◽  
Eric D. Kodish

Purpose To describe hopeful and persuasive messages communicated by physicians during informed consent for phase I trials and examine whether such communication is associated with physician and parent ratings of the likelihood of benefit, physician and parent ratings of the strength of the physician's recommendation to enroll, parent ratings of control, and parent ratings of perceived pressure. Patients and Methods Participants were children with cancer (n = 85) who were offered a phase I trial along with their parents and physicians. Informed consent conferences (ICCs) were audiotaped and coded for physician communication of hope and persuasion. Parents completed an interview (n = 60), and physicians completed a case-specific questionnaire. Results The most frequent hopeful statements related to expectations of positive outcomes and provision of options. Physicians failed to mention no treatment and/or palliative care as options in 68% of ICCs and that the disease was incurable in 85% of ICCs. When physicians mentioned no treatment and/or palliative care as options, both physicians and parents rated the physician's strength of recommendation to enroll in the trial lower. Conclusion Hopes and goals other than cure or longer life were infrequently mentioned, and a minority of physicians communicated that the disease was incurable and that no treatment and/or palliative care were options. These findings are of concern, given the low likelihood of medical benefit from phase I trials. Physicians have an important role to play in helping families develop alternative goals when no curative options remain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document