The changing face of phase I protocols: A closer look at study requirements

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3061-3061
Author(s):  
B. S. Craft ◽  
R. Kurzrock ◽  
R. Herbst ◽  
K. Culotta ◽  
C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Versus Phase

3061 Background: We have studied our recent experience in the MDACC Clinical Translational Research Center (CTRC), the Phase I Program, and the Dept. of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology to compare the extent of regulatory and other requirements for current phase I and II cancer clinical trials. Methods: We developed a comprehensive database, together with a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet matrix to analyze the number and extent of diagnostic and therapeutic requirements for each protocol. We then examined the demands for pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling as well as electrocardiography (ECG) in the first cycle of a protocol as a surrogate for study complexity. Results: Since October, 2002, 250 protocols have been conducted in the CTRC; 54.6% were Phase I clinical trials. We reviewed 65 trials, approximately one quarter of the total. Of these, 48 were phase I trials carried out by the Phase I Program. For comparison, we identified 17 phase II trials managed by the Dept. of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology during the same time period. In the phase I trials there were significantly more PKs (mean ± SE = 16.69 ± 1.93) than in the phase II trials (mean ± SE = 1.82 ± 1.17) (p<0.0001). Similarly, there were more ECGs in the phase I versus phase II trials (4.46 ± 1.18 vs. 1.41 ± 0.35; p=0.017). Conclusions: Pharmacokinetic collection and ECG monitoring in Phase I trials are complex and labor-intensive. In addition, they represent only a small portion of time-intensive requirements, with increasingly complicated correlates and monitoring (physical exams, imaging, etc.). Successful and accurate Phase I clinical trials require resources and commitment for research infrastructure considerably greater than later phase studies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Identification of a predictive biomarker and two pharmacodynamic biomarkers to ADG106 treatment, a novel anti-CD137 agonist antibody, in phase I clinical trials.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14505-e14505
Author(s):  
Li Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Tumor Shrinkage ◽  
Target Engagement ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers

e14505 Background: ADG106 is a fully human agonistic anti-CD137 monoclonal IgG4 antibody that mediates anti-tumor activities via unique mechanisms of action. Here we provide safety and efficacy updates from our phase I trials and report the findings of a predictive biomarker and two pharmacodynamic biomarkers which correlate with patients’ clinical responses to ADG106 treatment and demonstrate target engagement, respectively. Methods: Formalin fixed and paraffin embedded (FFPE), blood and plasma specimens were collected from 92 patients enrolled in our phase I trials. We measured expression across a panel of protein biomarkers in FFPE specimens using three highly sensitive detection technologies: multiple immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of protein expression, the BD Multitest 6-color TBNK reagent for profiling immune cell subpopulations, and the MSD-ECL electrochemiluminescence assay for detection of soluble CD137. Objective tumor responses were determined using RECIST v1.1 for solid tumor patients and Lugano classification for lymphoma patients. Results: As of November 30, 2020, ADG106 has demonstrated a favorable safety profile and efficacy in the phase I clinical trials with a disease control rate of 56%. From a retrospective analysis of 28 pretreatment FFPE specimens, we identified a predictive biomarker that correlated with tumor shrinkage upon ADG106 treatment. We identified four biomarker positive specimens from two patients with lymphoma and two with solid tumors. Three out of four biomarker positive patients achieved greater than 30% tumor shrinkage after 3mg/kg or 5mg/kg ADG106 treatment. One biomarker positive patient with stable disease received a low dose ADG106 treatment at 0.5mg/kg during dose escalation. None of the 24 biomarker negative patients showed significant clinical response. A tissue microarray study confirmed expression of this predictive biomarker in a variety of tumor types suggesting a broad indication for ADG106 therapy. Our biomarker studies also demonstrated target engagement with increased NK cell proliferation and soluble CD137 upon ADG106 treatment. Analysis of safety, efficacy, PK and PD data allowed us to select a recommended dose for the upcoming phase II study. Conclusions: We identified a biomarker predictive of response to antitumor CD137 blockade by ADG106, as well as demonstrated the involvement of NK cells in ADG106 mediated anti-tumor activities. In upcoming phase II trials, we plan to enrich for populations expressing this predictive biomarker to demonstrate a clinical benefit to ADG106 therapy further validating early biomarker-based patient stratification. We will also explore the potential of selecting patients for combination treatment with anti-PD-1 therapies. Clinical trial information: NCT03802955.

scholarly journals Therapeutic outcome of early-phase clinical trials in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels van Nieuwenhuijzen ◽  
Rowan Frunt ◽  
Anne M. May ◽  
Monique C. Minnema
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Early Phase Clinical Trials

AbstractGreat progress in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has been made due to the development of novel drugs. Patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) can be enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, but their performance across the last decade is unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis on the overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for phase I and phase II trials investigating an experimental compound as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone, published from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2020. Eighty-eight articles were included, describing 61 phase I trials involving 1835 patients and 37 phase II trials involving 2644 patients. There was a high degree of heterogeneity. Using a random-effects model, the 95% CIs of the estimated ORR were 8–17% for phase I trials and 18–28% for phase II trials. There were significant subgroup differences in ORR between the years of publication in phase I trials and between drug classes in both phase I and phase II trials. The ORR in early-phase clinical trials in RRMM is substantial, especially in phase II trials, but due to high heterogeneity a general assessment of clinical benefit before participation is difficult to offer to patients.

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.

scholarly journals Healthy Volunteers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Their Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 494-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Megan M. Wood ◽  
Marci D. Cottingham ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Trial History

Other than the financial motivations for enrolling in Phase I trials, research on how healthy volunteers perceive the benefits of their trial participation is scant. Using qualitative interviews conducted with 178 U.S. healthy volunteers enrolled in Phase I trials, we investigated how participants described the benefits of their study involvement, including, but not limited to, the financial compensation, and we analyzed how these perceptions varied based on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial history. We found that participants detailed economic, societal, and noneconomic personal benefits. We also found differences in participants’ perceived benefits based on gender, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of clinical trials completed. Our study indicates that many healthy volunteers believe they gain more than just the financial compensation when they accept the risks of Phase I participation.

scholarly journals Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Ross Camidge ◽  
Haeseong Park ◽  
Karen E Smoyer ◽  
Ira Jacobs ◽  
Lauren J Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Predominantly White ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Minimal Representation ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Demographic Representation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Race Ethnicity

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African–Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups

scholarly journals Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e357-e367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Nancy E. Kass ◽  
Debra Roter ◽  
Susan Larson ◽  
Kristen E. Wroblewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Benefits

Purpose: Advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who participate in phase I clinical trials often report a less-than-ideal understanding of the required elements of informed consent (IC) and unrealistic expectations for anticancer benefit and prognosis. We examined phase I clinical trial enrollment discussions and their associations with subsequent ACP understanding. Methods: Clinical encounters about enrollment in phase I trials between 101 ACPs and 29 oncologists (principal investigators [PIs] and fellows) at three US academic medical institutions were recorded. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used for analysis. ACPs completed follow-up questionnaires to assess IC recall. Results: PIs disclosed the following phase I IC elements to ACPs in encounters: trial purpose in 40%; specific physical risks in 60%; potential specific medical benefits gained by trial participation (eg, disease stabilization) in 48.2%; and alternatives to phase I trial participation in 47.1%, with 1.1% of encounters containing palliative and 2.3% hospice information. PIs provided ACP-specific prognoses in 29.0% of encounters but used precise terms of death in only 4.7% and terminal in 1.2%. A significant association existed between PI disclosure of the trial purpose as dosage/toxicity, and ACPs subsequently correctly recalled trial purpose versus PIs who did not disclose it (85% v 13%; P < .05). Conclusion: Many oncologists provide incomplete disclosures about phase I trials to ACPs. When disclosure of certain elements of IC occurs, it seems to be associated with better recall, especially with regard to the research purpose of phase I trials.

scholarly journals Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2483-2491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Greg A. Sachs ◽  
Eric R. Larson ◽  
Halla S. Nimeiri ◽  
David Cella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Trail Making Test ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Trail Making

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

New requirements for phase I trials: a challenge for Italian clinical research

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Marchesi ◽  
Manuela Monti ◽  
Oriana Nanni ◽  
Lisette Bassi ◽  
Martina Piccinni-Leopardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
Near Future

Background: In 2015, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; AIFA) issued the Determination 809/2015 with new requirements for phase I clinical trials. Before it came into force, we explored the extent to which several Italian oncology centers were working to implement it. Methods: A survey was conducted among 80 Italian centers involved in clinical trials. Investigators and research coordinators were surveyed. Results: Answers from 42 institutions were collected: among them 88.1% were involved in oncology research. In the last 5 years, 55% had conducted from 1 to 5 phase I trials, and only 16.7% more than 5. A third were involved in not-first-in-human research and none with healthy volunteers. The majority (57.1%) of the centers did not run any projects and trials are non-commercial, and about 35%, no more than 2. While 9.5% already met the standards for self-certification, 71.4% were working to achieve them. Standard operating procedures dedicated to research and the required good clinical practice training had been established by 57.1% and 76.2%, respectively. Fifty percent of laboratories were almost compliant with the Determination. After 10 months from its coming into force, 98 sites had applied for certification, of which 34 were oncology units. Conclusions: The new AIFA Determination imposes a certified organizational model on units and laboratories involved in phase I trials. Our results showed that great efforts were made to qualify for phase I research suggesting that other oncology units will apply for certification in the near future. Predictably, Italy will set the pace as a highly qualified country in which to conduct early-phase research.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of an educational DVD on cancer patients considering participation in a phase I clinical trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6011-6011
Author(s):  
E. L. Strevel ◽  
C. Newman ◽  
G. R. Pond ◽  
M. Maclean ◽  
L. L. Siu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinic Appointment ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Self Administered Questionnaire

6011 Background: Informed consent for phase I trials is controversial; gaps in patient (pt) knowledge regarding the purpose of these studies are central to this debate. This study assessed the impact of viewing an educational DVD on pt knowledge and satisfaction in cancer pts newly referred to a phase I trials clinic. Methods: Prior to physician (MD) appointment, 49 pts were randomly assigned to view either an educational DVD (n = 22) which provided information about phase I trials, or a placebo DVD (n = 27) which described research achievements by local scientists. Upon completion of DVD viewing, pts completed a self-administered questionnaire addressing their understanding of phase I trials (knowledge) and their satisfaction with the DVD (perception). The interviewing MD (n = 8), who was blinded to the intervention, also rated the pt’s understanding of phase I trials upon completion of the clinic appointment. Results: The mean pt age was 56 and 61% were male. Prior to attending the phase I clinic, most pts (86%) had previously heard of clinical trials, but only 49% were aware of phase I trials. Pts who viewed the educational DVD were less likely to believe that the goal of phase I trials is to determine the efficacy of a new drug (p = 0.019), more likely to correctly assess that drugs undergoing phase I evaluations have not been thoroughly studied in humans (p = 0.003), and less likely to believe that phase I drugs have proven activity against human cancers (p = 0.008). More pts who viewed the educational DVD than the placebo DVD agreed/strongly agreed that the DVD provided useful information (p < 0.001), believed that they had a good knowledge of phase I trials (p = 0.031), felt that the DVD helped them decide whether to enter a phase I trial (p = 0.011), and perceived that they would have more questions for their physicians as a result of watching the DVD (p = 0.017). No statistically significant differences in MD satisfaction was observed. Conclusions: Exposure to an educational DVD increased both objective measures of pt knowledge as well as pt satisfaction regarding participation in phase I clinical trials. The educational DVD did not significantly impact MD perception of pt understanding. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Analysis of renal function in patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I studies since 1979

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2519-2519 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. McHayleh ◽  
R. Sehgal ◽  
D. M. Potter ◽  
R. B. Royds ◽  
T. G. Nekrassova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Antineoplastic Agents ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I Studies ◽  
Administration Methods

2519 Background: The NCI and FDA utilize different criteria for classifying renal dysfunction. We analyzed renal function in all patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trials since 1979 to evaluate the percentage of patients with acceptable renal function according to criteria utilized by the National Cancer Institute, as compared with those advocated by the Food and Drug Administration. Methods: Data from 12575 patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I studies since 1979 were evaluated. Renal function was characterized by calculating creatinine clearance (CrCl) by three different formulae (Cockroft-Gault, Jelliffe, and Levey), as well as GFR according to MDRD. Results: Of the 12,575 patients, data were available to calculate renal function with all the 4 formulae in 5,177. Distributions of CrCl and GFR were defined, and patients were classified as having normal renal function or severe, moderate, or mild renal dysfunction according to FDA or NCI criteria. The resulting distributions are indicated in the table below. Conclusions: Approximately 40% of patients entered into CTEP-sponsored phase I trials have mild renal dysfunction according to FDA criteria and approximately 95% have CrCls > 50 ml/min. These data imply that moderate and severe are the only renal dysfunction categories that need to be evaluated in renal dysfunction studies of novel antineoplastic agents and that FDA guidelines should be applicable. Whether patients in the NCI database with CrCls of 50–80 ml/min experience more toxicities than those with creatinine clearances > 80 ml/min is undergoing evaluation. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document