scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

Rituximab-CHOP21 Plus Lenalidomide (LR-CHOP21) Is Effective and Feasible in Elderly Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Results of Phase II REAL07 Study of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 903-903
Author(s):  
Annalisa Chiappella ◽  
Silvia Franceschetti ◽  
Alessia Castellino ◽  
Angelo Michele Carella ◽  
Ileana Baldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Grade Iii

Abstract Abstract 903 Introduction. R-CHOP21 is the standard treatment for untreated elderly DLBCL, however up to 40% of patients fail. There is a need to improve the efficacy of R-CHOP21; an option may be the addition of novel drugs in first line induction therapy. Lenalidomide has a complex mechanism of action as immunemodulation, antiangiogenesis, restoration of immunesynapses and direct antitumor effects. Lenalidomide monotherapy exhibits significant activity in patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell NHL and has in vitro synergy with rituximab and cytotoxic therapy. This rationale prompted FIL to conduct a prospective multicenter dose finding phase I-II trial aimed at evaluating toxicity and activity of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP21 (LR-CHOP21) in elderly untreated DLBCL (NCT00907348). In the dose-finding phase I study, 21 patients were enrolled, and 15 mg lenalidomide from day 1 to day 14 was identified as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in combination with R-CHOP21 (Vitolo, Ann Oncol 2011;22(4):331a). Patients and Methods. Based on the phase I results, 15 mg of lenalidomide in combination to R-CHOP21 was tested in a phase II study. Phase II was designed according to Simon's two stage design; primary endpoint was an improvement of overall response rate (ORR) of 15% in LR-CHOP21 compared to 70% of standard R-CHOP21 and the study would be considered of interest if at least 16/23 in step 1 and 39/49 in step 2 responses occurred. Response was evaluated according to 2007 Cheson criteria. PET scan was mandatory at the end of the treatment; patients in partial remission (PR) who underwent radiotherapy were considered as failure in progression free survival (PFS) analysis. Inclusion criteria were: age 60–80 FIT at the comprehensive geriatric assessment; untreated CD20+ DLBCL; Ann Arbor stage II/III/IV; IPI at LI/IH/H risk. Treatment plan was: R-CHOP21 plus 15 mg lenalidomide from day 1 to 14 for 6 courses. Mandatory supportive care included: GCSF or PegGCSF, cotrimoxazole as Pneumocystis Jiroveci prophylaxis and low molecular weight heparin or low dose aspirin as deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. Results. From April 2010 to May 2011, 49 patients were enrolled in the phase II study including 9 patients treated at the MTD during phase I. Clinical characteristics were: median age 69 years (range 61–80); stage III/IV 43 (88%), performance status >1 31 (63%), IPI IH/H 30 (61%). The step-1 of the trial showed an ORR of 22/23. At the end of 6 LR-CHOP21, ORR was 45/49 (92%). Complete remissions (CR) were 42 (86%) and PR 3 (6%); 3 patients (6%) did not respond and one (2%) died for violent death. At a median follow-up of 18 months, overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI: 82–98) and PFS was 75% (95% CI: 57–86). (Figure 1). Of the 294 planned courses of LR-CHOP21, 277 (94%) were administered, of which 221 (75%) with lenalidomide as planned, 40 (14%) with dose and/or day reduction and 16 (5%) without lenalidomide. Median dose of lenalidomide delivered in 49 patients was 1185 mg (IQR 900–1260), i.e. 94% of the planned dose (1260 mg). The most frequent cause of lenalidomide reduction or withdrawal was neutropenia. At least 90% of the planned dose of doxorubicine, cyclophosphamide and vincristine were administered, in: 91%, 95% and 83% of the R-CHOP21 courses, respectively. Median interval time between R-CHOP21 courses was 21 days (range 19–48). Hematological toxicity was mild: grade III/IV thrombocytopenia occurred in 13% of courses, anemia in 5% and neutropenia in 33%, with only 4% of febrile neutropenia. No grade IV extra-hematological toxicities were observed. Grade III non-hematological toxicities were reported in 7 patients: cardiologic, gastroenteric and renal in one patient respectively, grade III neurological toxicities, sensory and motorial neuropathy in two, thromboembolic event in one not receiving anti-thrombotic prophylaxis, and skin rash in one. No toxic deaths occurred during treatment. One patient died three months off therapy while in CR, due to aeromonas hydrophila sepsis and multi-organ failure. Conclusions. The addition of 15 mg lenalidomide on days 1–14 to R-CHOP21 is safe, feasible and effective in elderly untreated DLBCL. The primary objective of the phase II study was met, with 92% of ORR of which 86% CR and promising PFS rates. The addition of lenalidomide did not impair the administration of R-CHOP21. Based on these data, the efficacy of LR-CHOP21 needs to be investigated in a large phase III randomized trial in elderly DLBCL. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Trial partially supported by a research grant by Celgene. Lenalidomide was provided free by Celgene. The use of Lenalidomide is off-label in untreated DLBCL. Dreyling:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitolo:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Focusing on the Treatment of COVID-19: A Comprehensive Analysis of 226 Trials Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov and ChiCTR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jincai Guo ◽  
Hui Xie ◽  
Hao Wu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intervention Measures ◽  
Chinese Medicine Treatment

Abstract Background: The purpose of this study is to analyze the registered clinical trials of COVID-19, and to provide a reference for the clinical treatment of COVID-19. Methods: Chinese ClinicalTrial Registry (ChiCTR) and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for clinical trials of COVID-19, which were registered from inception to February 29, 2020, to screen out the clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19, and the research units and regions, sample size, study types, study stages, and intervention measures were analyzed. Results: There were 226 clinical trials on COVID-19 in the 2 databases, and all of them were registered by research units in China. The top five registered areas were Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, and Zhejiang. The study type was as follows: interventional study (207, 91.6%) and observational study (18, 8.0%). Clinical trial staging was as follows: exploratory studies/preliminary trials (91, 40.3%), phase I trials (4, 1.8%), phase II trials (12, 5.3%), phase III trials (12, 5.3%), phase IV trials (47, 20.8%), phase I/II trials (2, 0.9%), phase II/III trials (5, 2.2%), and other trials (57, 25.2%). Intervention measures were as follows: there were 143 (63.3%) trials of western medicine treatment, 50 (22.1%) trials of Chinese medicine treatment, and 21 (9.3%) trials of integrated Chinese medicine treatment and western medicine treatment. Conclusion: Researchers have registered a large number of clinical trials in a short time. The number of existing patients of COVID-19 is not enough to support hundreds of clinical trials. There is a lack of multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Evaluation of statistical designs of phase I/II clinical trials for cancer patients published in 2005

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14077-14077
Author(s):  
N. Houede ◽  
A. Kramar ◽  
X. Paoletti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Biological Marker ◽  
Statistical Design ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Dose Levels

14077 Background: Phase I trials determine the maximal safe dose that could be used in phase II trials. Designs are based on the assumption that efficacy and toxicity increase with dose. Phase I/II trials determine the safety, dosage levels, and response rate. This review addresses statistical issues of phase I/II studies designs. Methods: We reviewed phase I/II clinical trials for cancer patients published in 2005. The main criteria were: type of treatment, statistical design, endpoints, expected efficacy and toxicity, one- or two-steps designs, dose levels, definition of Dose Limiting Toxicity and recommended dose, objective response, survival, patient selection and follow-up. Results: 41 phase I/II trials were found. All but one, targeted a specific type of tumor. 14 studies included combined cytotoxic therapies. 21 studies included a cytotoxic agent combined with a targeted therapy (12) or with radiations (9). Others used monochemotherapy, immunotherapy, vaccine or gene therapy. 23 studies were a two steps design, i.e. a phase I followed by a phase II trial, and used a classical Fibonacci escalation dose model. All others used a one-step design evaluating efficacy and toxicity concomitantly. Among them, 3 had a Fibonacci-like design with a desescalation model and 4 had a randomization to different dose levels. In 1 trial, dose escalation was performed in the same patient. In the 10 remaining studies, 1 evaluated only one dose level and was improperly presented as a phase I/II study, and 9 did not describe any statistical design. DLT was described in only 27 trials. Also, recommended doses for further trials were only provided in 30 studies. Efficacy was evaluated with clinical or radiological response for 34 studies, biological marker was evaluated in 5 cases and time to progression in 2 cases. Conclusion: Most of the phase I/II trials published in 2005 used a classical two steps design with an adapted Fibonacci dose escalation. None of them used new designs such as continual reassessment method (CRM), which have the advantage to incorporate data during the course of the trial, leading to optimization of the study in terms of cost and speed. Methodological progresses are necessary to address issues related to multiple endpoints and to help clinicians to feel comfortable with the CRM. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Measuring the Incremental Cost of Clinical Cancer Research

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana P. Goldman ◽  
Michael L. Schoenbaum ◽  
Arnold L. Potosky ◽  
Jane C. Weeks ◽  
Sandra H. Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ongoing Effort ◽  
Cancer Trials ◽  
The Cost

PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on the costs of treating patients in clinical trials and to describe the Cost of Cancer Treatment Study, an ongoing effort to produce generalizable estimates of the incremental costs of government-sponsored cancer trials. METHODS: A retrospective study of costs will be conducted with 1,500 cancer patients recruited from a randomly selected sample of institutions in the United States. Patients accrued to either phase II or phase III National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trials during a 15-month period will be asked to participate in a study of their health care utilization (n = 750). Costs will be measured approximately 1 year after their trial enrollment from a combination of billing records, medical records, and an in-person survey questionnaire. Similar data will be collected for a comparable group of cancer patients not in trials (n = 750) to provide an estimate of the incremental cost. RESULTS: Evidence suggests insurers limit access to trials because of cost concerns. Public and private efforts are underway to change these policies, but their permanent status is unclear. Previous studies found that treatment costs in clinical trials are similar to costs of standard therapy. However, it is difficult to generalize from these studies because of the unique practice settings, insufficient sample sizes, and the exclusion of potentially important costs. CONCLUSION: Denials of coverage for treatment in a clinical trial limit patient access to trials and could impede clinical research. Preliminary estimates suggest changes to these policies would not be expensive, but these results are not generalizable. The Cost of Cancer Treatment Study is an ongoing effort to provide generalizable estimates of the incremental treatment cost of phase II and phase III cancer trials. The results should be of great interest to insurers and the research community as they consider permanent ways to finance cancer trials.

scholarly journals Three Phase II Cytokine Working Group Trials of gp100 (210M) Peptide Plus High-Dose Interleukin-2 in Patients With HLA-A2–Positive Advanced Melanoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (14) ◽  
pp. 2292-2298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Sosman ◽  
Carole Carrillo ◽  
Walter J. Urba ◽  
Lawrence Flaherty ◽  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Mononuclear Cells ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Cell Immunity ◽  
Three Phase

Purpose High-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) induces responses in 15% to 20% of patients with advanced melanoma; 5% to 8% are durable complete responses (CRs). The HLA-A2–restricted, modified gp100 peptide (210M) induces T-cell immunity in vivo and has little antitumor activity but, combined with high-dose IL-2, reportedly has a 42% (13 of 31 patients) response rate (RR). We evaluated 210M with one of three different IL-2 schedules to determine whether a basis exists for a phase III trial. Patients and Methods In three separate phase II trials, patients with melanoma received 210M subcutaneously during weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10 and standard high-dose IL-2 during weeks 1 and 3 (trial 1), weeks 7 and 9 (trial 2), or weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10 (trial 3). Immune assays were performed on peripheral-blood mononuclear cells collected before and after treatment. Results From 1998 to 2003, 131 patients with HLA-A2–positive were enrolled. With 60-month median follow-up time, the overall RR for 121 assessable patients was 16.5% (95% CI, 10% to 26%); the RRs were 23.8% in trial 1 (42 patients), 12.5% in trial 2 (40 patients), and 12.8% in trial 3 (39 patients). There were 11 CRs (9%) and nine partial responses (7%), with 11 patients (9%) progression free at ≥ 30 months. Immune studies including assays of CD3-ζ expression and numbers of CD4+/CD25+/FoxP3+ regulatory T cells, CD15+/CD11b+/CD14– immature myeloid-derived cells, and CD8+gp100 tetramer-positive cells in the blood did not correlate with clinical benefit. Conclusion The results again demonstrate efficacy of high-dose IL-2 in advanced melanoma but did not demonstrate the promising clinical activity reported with vaccine and high-dose IL-2 in any of three phase II trials.

Holmium-166 (166Ho)-DOTMP Skeletal Targeted Radiotherapy (STR™) with Melphalan and Autologous Peripheral Stem Cell Transplant (PBSCT) for Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 922-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Goodman ◽  
William I. Bensinger ◽  
Sergio Giralt ◽  
Donna Salzman ◽  
Katherine L. Ruffner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hemorrhagic Cystitis ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Red Marrow

Abstract Background: 166Ho-DOTMP is a beta-emitting radiophosphonate that localizes specifically to the bone surfaces and can deliver high dose radiation both to the bone and bone marrow. Follow-up data from 3 clinical trials with STR as conditioning for patients with MM undergoing autologous PBSCT are presented. Methods: In 2 Phase I/II dose-escalation trials, 83 patients received a dose of 166Ho-DOTMP STR calculated to deliver 20, 30, or 40 Gy to the red marrow; 82 pts received melphalan (140 or 200 mg/m2) ± 8 Gy TBI (n=25), followed by PBSCT. As of June, 2004, 77 subjects have been followed for at least 48 months. In a separate Phase II dosimetry trial, 12 patients received two 30 mCi tracer doses of 166Ho-DOTMP STR to determine the reproducibility of biodistribution and pharmacokinetics (PK). All pts received a 25 Gy therapy dose with concurrent IV hydration and continuous bladder irrigation, followed by 200 mg/m2 melphalan and PBSCT. These patients have been followed for at least 18 months. Results: Up to 2.3 Ci/m2, 166Ho-DOTMP STR was given in the Phase I/II trials; 29/83 (35%) patients achieved complete response (CR) and overall response rate (CR + PR) was 64% (7 pts not evaluable). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median survival is 5.2 years for all 83 patients. In patients who are at least 4 years post transplant who achieved a CR, the survival is 74% (n=27). In patients who achieved less than a CR at least 4 years ago, the survival is 34% (n=44). Dose-related radiation-induced kidney toxicity presented in some patients more than 6 months post-therapy. The dose of 166Ho-DOTMP STR in the Phase II dosimetry trial was 550 to 860 mCi/m2, 166Ho-DOTMP. Currently, 18 months of follow-up reveals no occurrence of hemorrhagic cystitis or > Grade 2 elevated creatinine. A CR rate of 17% with an overall survival of 92%, was observed. In 10 patients who received 166Ho-DOTMP STR 750 mCi/m2 ± 10% in the Phase I/II trial, the CR rate was 40%, and the 4-year survival was 70%. Monitoring for safety and duration of response is ongoing in all 3 trials. Conclusion: Follow-up from the Phase I/II trials confirms that 166Ho-DOTMP STR provides favorable efficacy and safety as part of the conditioning regimen for patients with MM undergoing PBSCT. A Phase III, randomized multicenter study is now open to enrollment, comparing the safety and efficacy of 166Ho-DOTMP STR plus melphalan to melphalan alone as conditioning for PBSCT in subjects with primary refractory MM who have failed to respond to induction therapy, including high-dose dexamethasone, and are within 18 months of diagnosis.

Evolution of statistical methodology and design of phase II/III clinical trials in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7108-7108 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. K. Bagai ◽  
A. Dowlati
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Improvement In Survival ◽  
Phase Ii And Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Studies

7108 Background: A significant heterogeneity exists in the design and reporting of phase II and III therapeutic clinical trials in NSCLC. This has led to difficulty in interpretation of these trials leading to over- or underestimation of therapeutic efficacy. We set out to investigate the statistical methodology and design reporting of chemotherapeutic trials in NSCLC published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) over 20 years. Methods: We identified all phase II and III NSCLC chemotherapy trials published in the JCO from January 1983 to August 2005. All manuscripts were reviewed to evaluate components of statistical design that were reported, including: sample size calculation, power, type I error, single or multiple drug trials, relative response sought in phase II trials and improvement in survival time or response rate sought in phase III trials. Results: One hundred forty eight trials were identified. 52% of studies were phase III and 48% were phase II. The majority (78%) were conducted in advanced stage NSCLC. Sample size calculations were reported for only 58% of phase III studies and 31% of phase II studies. Power was reported in 66% of phase III studies and 13% of phase II trials. Type I error was reported in 47% of phase III studies and 17% in phase II studies. 60% of phase III trials defined endpoints (percentage improvement in survival time, improvement in survival time in months or increase in response rate). 41% of phase II trails defined the target response rate, ranging from response rates of 15% to 70%. The frequency of adequate reporting of statistical design was shown to increase from 31% in 1990–1995 to 64% in 2000–2005 ( table ). Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists in trial design and reporting of phase II and III trials in NSCLC. This impacts the ability to adequately interpret these studies. More widespread application of statistical methods in planning and reporting of lung cancer clinical trials are necessary to increase reliability of data. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Association of serious adverse events with type and sponsorship of clinical trials in patients with lymphoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6576-6576
Author(s):  
T. L. Koeneke ◽  
J. O. Armitage ◽  
P. J. Bierman ◽  
R. Bociek ◽  
J. M. Vose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Large Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Early Phase Clinical Trials

6576 Background: Arguments have been made against early phase clinical trials (CTs) as possibly being unethical because its risk may outweigh its potential benefits. Whether this is true in the light of newer biological treatment for cancer is unknown. We therefore examined the association between the incidence of serious adverse events according to type and sponsorship of CTs in pts with lymphoma. Methods: All IRB approved CTs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from Jan 2000-June 2005 classified as therapeutic for lymphoma involving a biological agent were included. CTs were classified in two ways: by type of CTs (phase I vs II vs III) and sponsorship (Investigator-initiated vs Industry-initiated. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between types/sponsorship of CTs with the incidence of IRB serious adverse events (SAE; no vs yes) and fatal adverse events (FAE; no vs yes) while adjusting for age, sex, race, lymphoma type and stage, interval from dx to tx, co-morbid conditions, and previous tx. Results: 357 pts with lymphoma enrolled in 29 CTs were included. The median age of pt was 54y (21–88). 41% of the pts had follicular lymphoma, 36% diffuse large cell, 14% mantle cell and 9% were other types. 59% had Stage IV lymphoma. 71% of the pts participated in investigator-initiated CTs, while 29% participated in industry-initiated CTs. 21% of pts were enrolled in phase I, 65% in phase II and 14% in phase III studies. SAEs were seen in 49 pts (14%), while FAEs occurred in 13 pts (4%). Multivariate analysis showed the risk of having SAE was independent of the type or sponsor of CTs. Additionally, the risk of FAEs was not associated with the type of CTs. However, the risk of having FAEs was less in investigator- iniatiated CTs than in industry-iniatiated trials (Odds Ratio: 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03–0.61, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our study showed that in CTs involving biological treatments, the incidence of SAEs was not associated with the type or sponsor of CTs suggesting that use of biological agents in phase I studies may have similar risks to phase II/III trials. Further studies should be done in other types of malignancies to evaluate further the decrease frequency of FAEs seen in investigator-initiated trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Predictive value of phase II clinical trials in pancreatic cancer: Rethinking the road to progress.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4036-4036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Halperin ◽  
J. Jack Lee ◽  
James C. Yao
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Type Ii Error ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Fda Approval

4036 Background: Few new therapies for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), reflecting frequent failures in phase III trials. We hypothesize that the high failure rate in large trials is due to a low predictive value for “positive” phase II studies. Methods: Given a median time from initiation of clinical trials to FDA approval of 6.3 years, we conducted a systematic search of the clinicaltrials.gov database for phase II interventional trials of antineoplastic therapy in PC initiated from 1999-2004. We reviewed drug labels and NCCN guidelines for FDA approval and guideline recommendations. Results: We identified 70 phase II trials that met our inclusion criteria. Forty-five evaluated compounds without preexisting FDA approval, 23 evaluated drugs approved in other diseases, and 2 evaluated cellular therapies. With a median follow-up of 12.5 years, none of these drugs gained FDA approval in PC. Four trials, all combining chemotherapy with radiation, eventually resulted in NCCN recommendations. Forty-two of the trials have been published. Of 16 studies providing pre-specified type I error rates, these rates were ≥0.1 in 8 studies, 0.05 in 6 studies and <0.025 in 2 studies. Of 21 studies specifying type II error rates, 7 used >0.1, 10 used 0.1, and 4 used <0.1. Published studies reported a median enrollment of 47 subjects. Fourteen trials reported utilizing a randomized design. Conclusions: The low rate of phase II trials resulting in eventual regulatory approval of therapies for PC reflects the challenge of conquering a tough disease as well as deficiencies in the statistical designs. New strategies are necessary to quantify and improve odds of success in drug development. Statistical parameters of individual or coupled phase II trials should be tailored to achieve the desired predictive value prior to initiating pivotal phase III studies. Positive predictive value of a phase II study assuming a 1%, 2%, or 5% prior probability of success and 10% type II error rate. [Table: see text]

Established and In-trial GPCR Families in Clinical Trials: A Review for Target Selection

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 522-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surovi Saikia ◽  
Manobjyoti Bordoloi ◽  
Rajeev Sarmah
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Discovery ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Human Genome ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Drug Targets ◽  
Complex Diseases ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
Receptor Complexes

The largest family of drug targets in clinical trials constitute of GPCRs (G-protein coupled receptors) which accounts for about 34% of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved drugs acting on 108 unique GPCRs. Factors such as readily identifiable conserved motif in structures, 127 orphan GPCRs despite various de-orphaning techniques, directed functional antibodies for validation as drug targets, etc. has widened their therapeutic windows. The availability of 44 crystal structures of unique receptors, unexplored non-olfactory GPCRs (encoded by 50% of the human genome) and 205 ligand receptor complexes now present a strong foundation for structure-based drug discovery and design. The growing impact of polypharmacology for complex diseases like schizophrenia, cancer etc. warrants the need for novel targets and considering the undiscriminating and selectivity of GPCRs, they can fulfill this purpose. Again, natural genetic variations within the human genome sometimes delude the therapeutic expectations of some drugs, resulting in medication response differences and ADRs (adverse drug reactions). Around ~30 billion US dollars are dumped annually for poor accounting of ADRs in the US alone. To curb such undesirable reactions, the knowledge of established and currently in clinical trials GPCRs families can offer huge understanding towards the drug designing prospects including “off-target” effects reducing economical resource and time. The druggability of GPCR protein families and critical roles played by them in complex diseases are explained. Class A, class B1, class C and class F are generally established family and GPCRs in phase I (19%), phase II(29%), phase III(52%) studies are also reviewed. From the phase I studies, frizzled receptors accounted for the highest in trial targets, neuropeptides in phase II and melanocortin in phase III studies. Also, the bioapplications for nanoparticles along with future prospects for both nanomedicine and GPCR drug industry are discussed. Further, the use of computational techniques and methods employed for different target validations are also reviewed along with their future potential for the GPCR based drug discovery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document