scholarly journals Trial Design Challenges and Approaches for Precision Oncology in Rare Tumors: Experiences of the Children’s Oncology Group

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lindsay A. Renfro ◽  
Lingyun Ji ◽  
Jin Piao ◽  
Arzu Onar-Thomas ◽  
John A. Kairalla ◽  
...  

In the United States, cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death in children. Although survival from any pediatric cancer has improved dramatically during past decades, a number of cancers continue to yield dismal prognoses, which has motivated the continued study of novel therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, even patients cured of pediatric cancer often experience severe adverse effects of treatment and other long-term health implications, such as cardiotoxicity or loss of fertility. For these patients, improved risk stratification to identify those who could safely receive alternate or less-intensive therapy without affecting prognosis is a key objective. Fortunately, pediatric cancers are rare overall, but even among patients with the same narrow cancer type, there is often broad heterogeneity in terms of prognosis, molecular features or pathology, current treatment strategies, and scientific objectives. As a result, the design of clinical trials in the pediatric cancer setting is challenged by a number of practical issues that must be addressed to ensure trial feasibility for this vulnerable group of patients. In this review, we discuss some of the unique trial design considerations often encountered in any rare tumor setting through the lens of our experiences as faculty statisticians for the Children’s Oncology Group, the largest organization in the world dedicated exclusively to pediatric cancer research and clinical trials. These topics include risk stratification within individual trials, relaxation of trial operating characteristics and parameters, use of historical controls, and address of noninferiority-type objectives in small cohorts. We review each in terms of practical motivation, present challenges, and potential solutions described in the literature and implemented in selected example trials from the Children’s Oncology Group.

2020 ◽  
pp. 107815522097102
Author(s):  
Kirollos S Hanna ◽  
Maren Campbell ◽  
Adam Kolling ◽  
Alex Husak ◽  
Sabrina Sturm ◽  
...  

Urothelial carcinoma is the sixth most common cancer type in the United States. Although most patients present with early stage disease which is associated with improved outcomes, many will progress to locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly impacted the treatment paradigm for patients and have resulted in improved survival rates. Despite their proven efficacy, many ongoing clinical trials continue to refine combinations with chemotherapy, sequencing of therapies and the role of ligand expression. Additionally, novel targets have been identified for advanced urothelial carcinoma and have led to the approval of the antibody-drug conjugate, enfortumab vedotin, and the fibroblast growth factor receptor-targeted, erdafitinib. Enrollment in a clinical trial is strongly encouraged for all stages of advanced or metastatic disease. Numerous ongoing clinical trials are likely to impact the treatment armamentarium for patients. In this manuscript, we highlight key updates in the clinical management for patients and outline ongoing trials.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3073-3073
Author(s):  
Marc Ryan Matrana ◽  
Scott A. Tomlins ◽  
Kat Kwiatkowski ◽  
Khalis Mitchell ◽  
Jennifer Marie Suga ◽  
...  

3073 Background: Widespread integration of systematized next generation sequencing (NGS)-based precision oncology is hindered by numerous barriers. Hence, we developed the Strata trial (NCT03061305), a screening protocol to determine the impact of scaled precision oncology. Methods: We implemented no-cost NGS on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) clinical samples for all patients with advanced tumors, a common portfolio of partnered therapeutic clinical trials, and robust infrastructure development across the Strata Precision Oncology Network. Results: Across the network of 17 centers, specimens from 8673/9222 (94%) patients were successfully tested in the Strata CLIA/CAP/NCI-MATCH accredited laboratory using comprehensive amplicon-based DNA and RNA NGS. Patients were tested with one of three StrataNGS test versions; the most recent panel assesses all classes of actionable alterations (mutations, copy number alterations, gene fusions, microsatellite instability, tumor mutation burden and PD-L1 expression). Median surface area of received FFPE tumor samples was 25mm2 (interquartile range 9-95mm2), and the median turnaround time from sample receipt to report was 6 business days. 2577 (27.9%) patients had highly actionable alterations, defined as alterations associated with within-cancer type FDA approved or NCCN guideline recommended therapies (1072 patients), NCI-MATCH trial arms (1467 patients), Strata-partnered therapeutic trials (327 patients), or specific alteration-matched FDA approved therapies in patients with cancers of unknown primary (71 patients). Of the 1467 patients matched to an NCI-MATCH trial arm, 15 enrolled. Of the 327 patients matched to one of nine Strata-partnered clinical trials, 77 (24%) were screen failures, while 250 (76%) have either enrolled or are being actively followed for enrollment upon progression. Conclusions: Through streamlined consent methods, electronic medical record queries, and high throughput laboratory testing at no cost to patients, we demonstrate that scaled precision oncology is feasible across a diverse network of healthcare systems when paired with access to relevant clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT03061305.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Matrisian ◽  
Maren Martinez ◽  
Allison Rosenzweig ◽  
Cassadie Moravek ◽  
Anne-Marie Duliege

Trends in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer between 2011-2020 were tracked in the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network database originally designed to assist in identifying open trials for eligible patients. More than 125 trials specific for pancreatic cancer or including no more than one additional cancer type have been open each year, the majority for patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). The trends indicate an active and progressive pancreatic cancer research community and include an increasing number of trials for previously treated patients, the emergence of trials for post-adjuvant or maintenance therapy, an increasing number of research-intensive phase 0 trials, increasing seamless phase I/II and II/III trials to improve efficiency, and an increasing number of phase III trials despite historical failures. Trials were analyzed by treatment type and included trials to optimize standard chemotherapy or radiation therapy, trials targeting tumor pathways, the stroma, or the immune system, biomarker-specified trials, and a miscellaneous category of trials testing tumor metabolism, complementary medicine approaches, or alternate energy sources. There was a dramatic increase in immunotherapy trials over this time. Several biomarker-specified trials were initiated, and FDA approval was obtained for biomarker-specified targeted agents, many in a tissue-agnostic setting, indicating an increase in a precision medicine approach to pancreatic cancer treatment. An increasing number of trials tested non-standard approaches, many which progressed to phase III. The trends suggest an encouraging trajectory of pancreatic cancer clinical research.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2973-2973
Author(s):  
Andre Goy ◽  
Tommy Wu ◽  
Eric Hansen ◽  
Srikesh Arunajadai ◽  
Ewelina Protomastro ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The outcome of MCL patients (pts) has improved over the last three decades, although this is debated outside clinical trials (Chandran, Leuk Lymphoma Aug 2012; Smith, Br J Cancer. April 2015). The Mantle Cell International Prognostic Index (MIPI) (Hoster, Blood Jan 2008) is based on 4 variables which predict survival: age (host factor), PS (tumor/host), LDH (tumor burden) and WBC (leukemic phase). The additional value of including co-morbidities into risk stratification has not been fully explored. Methods: Using the COTA database we retrospectively analyzed MCL cases treated at John Theurer Cancer Center and the affiliated practices of Regional Cancer Care Associates from 2004 to 2016. Clinical and treatment characteristics, including calculation of the CCI index (Charlson J Chronic Diseases 1987) were captured via the COTA platform by extracting data from the electronic health records. Results: 490 pts with MCL were evaluated and full longitudinal data from diagnosis is currently reported on 195 subjects. Pts characteristics included: male (66.15%), med age (65, range 34-94), stage IV (87%), LDH (elevated 26%; median 197, range 112-7950), MIPI (low 38%, interm 32%, high 30%), Ki-67 (≥30%: 51%, 86 NA), blastoid variant (16%, 35 NA), SOX-11 positive (87%, 143 NA), 17p abnormalities (p53 del or overexpression/mutation (24%, 88 NA) and b-2 microglobulin (b-2m) > 3 mg/L (52%). Frontline therapy consisted of R-Hyper-CVAD (with or without bortezomib on study) (36%), R-HyperCVAD or R-CHOP followed by high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (9%), BR alone (8%), BR+ maintenance (8%), R-CHOP alone (4%), Rituximab (3%), R-BAC (3%), BR+ Ibrutinib vs placebo (2%), radiation (2%), R-Lenalidomide (1%), R-CHOP + maintenance (1%), other treatments (10%) while 10% of patients were treated expectantly Seventeen pts underwent ASCT consolidation (15 auto vs 2 allo (del17p/blastoid at presentation). Overall and progression free survival was computed using Kaplan Meier curves and significance tested using log-rank tests. The 5y OS for this entire cohort was 81. Overall, dose-intensive strategies (with or without ASCT) approach was associated with a 23 mo difference in PFS (median 74 mo, range 0-111 mo (intensive) vs median 51 mo, range 2-57 mo for the non-intensive group (p=0.37). The median OS was not reached for either group, with a 5y OS of 88% in intensive vs. 71% non-intensive regimens (p=0.14). Using MIPI as stratification, low/intermediate risk pts had similar outcome in intensive and non-intensive therapy groups (5y OS 88% vs 71%; p=0.13). Pts with high MIPI had a 5 year OS of 80% in the intensive therapy group vs 46% for non-intensive group (p=0.376). The CCI scores for the whole cohort were 0 in 16 pts (8%), 1-3 in 81 pts (41%), and ≥ 4 in 98 pts (50%). Baseline CCI score (pre-treatment) was highly predictive of outcome with a 5y OS of 90% in CCI 0-3 vs 62% in CCI 3+ (p=0.001) (Figure 1). CCI did not predict complete response rate (CR) to induction therapy (CCI 0-3 94% vs CCI 3+ 80%). The median MIPI scores were 5.7 for CCI 0-3 and 6.3 for CCI 3+. Age is a component of both indexes but more heavily weighted in the CCI. Adding CCI to MIPI defined a subset of pts among the high MIPI group who did better than expected with a 5y OS of 88% in combined high MIPI / CCI 0-3 vs 31% for high MIPI / CCI 4+/ (p=0.03). b-2m (cut-off 3mg/L) correlated with 5y OS 93% vs 80%; (p=0.04) as previously reported but did not add to MIPI or CCI risk stratification. Ki-67 (30% cut-off) was marginally associated with OS: 5-y 89% vs 77% (p=0.06). Conclusions: Our cohort is consistent with the improvement of MCL outcome comparing to historical controls and illustrates the importance of comorbidities captured at baseline. A combined CCI-MIPI approach might help identify pts who can still benefit from current therapy approaches in spite of age. Among the high MIPI score group, CCI further refines cohorts with significantly different outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. FIgure 2 FIgure 2. Disclosures Goy: Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; COTA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research funding for clinical trials through institution. Wu:COTA: Employment. Hansen:COTA: Employment. Arunajadai:COTA: Employment. Protomastro:COTA: Employment. Valentinetti:COTA: Employment. Murphy:COTA: Employment. Smith:COTA: Employment. Pe Benito:COTA: Employment. Hasan:COTA: Employment. Suryadevara:COTA: Employment. Feldman:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Skarbnik:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy. Leslie:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Pecora:COTA: Employment, Equity Ownership. Goldberg:Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Neostem: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Consultancy; COTA Inc: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6564-6564
Author(s):  
Kelly Faulk ◽  
Amy Anderson-Mellies ◽  
Myles Cockburn ◽  
Adam Green

6564 Background: Improvements in pediatric cancer survival are attributed to cooperative clinical trials. Under representation of specific demographic groups has been described in adult and pediatric cancer and poses a threat to the generalizability of trial results. A comprehensive evaluation of data provided by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) of upfront trial enrollment for US patients 0 to 29 years old between 2004 and 2015 was performed to assess for disparities in participation. Methods: Estimates of cancer cases were calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and the US Census and compared to observed COG cases. Percent enrollment and Standardized Ratios of enrollment were calculated across various demographic, disease, and socioeconomic groups. The COG website was utilized to quantify available upfront trials during the study period and assess age eligibility criteria. Results: 21.3% of estimated US cancer patients age 0 to 19 years enrolled on COG trials. Younger patients were consistently more represented across disease types and race/ethnicities. Patients with hematologic malignancies were more represented compared to solid and central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Conclusions: COG clinical trial enrollment rates are declining, which may be due to challenges in pediatric drug development, difficulty designing feasible trials for highly curable diseases, and issues in ensuring trial availability for the heterogeneous group of solid and CNS tumors. Though racial/ethnic groups and county-level socioeconomic factors were proportionally represented, under representation of the adolescent/young adult (AYA) population and younger patients with solid and CNS tumors remain significant concerns. Targeted enrollment efforts should focus on the identified subgroups and further research should evaluate AYA enrollment across all available trials to provide continued treatment advances for all patients.


Science ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 363 (6432) ◽  
pp. 1175-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven G. DuBois ◽  
Laura B. Corson ◽  
Kimberly Stegmaier ◽  
Katherine A. Janeway

Cancer treatment decisions are increasingly based on the genomic profile of the patient’s tumor, a strategy called “precision oncology.” Over the past few years, a growing number of clinical trials and case reports have provided evidence that precision oncology is an effective approach for at least some children with cancer. Here, we review key factors influencing pediatric drug development in the era of precision oncology. We describe an emerging regulatory framework that is accelerating the pace of clinical trials in children as well as design challenges that are specific to trials that involve young cancer patients. Last, we discuss new drug development approaches for pediatric cancers whose growth relies on proteins that are difficult to target therapeutically, such as transcription factors.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuanyi Li ◽  
Elizabeth A. Sigworth ◽  
Adrianne H. Wu ◽  
Jess Behrens ◽  
Shervin A. Etemad ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundClinical trials establish the standard of care for cancer and other diseases. While social network analysis has been applied to basic sciences, the social component of clinical trial research is not well characterized. We examined the social network of cancer clinical trialists and its dynamic development over more than 70 years, including the roles of subspecialization and gender in relation to traditional and network-based metrics of productivity.MethodsWe conducted a social network analysis of authors publishing chemotherapy-based prospective trials from 1946-2018, based on the curated knowledge base HemOnc.org, examining: 1) network density; 2) modularity; 3) assortativity; 4) betweenness centrality; 5) PageRank; and 6) the proportion of co-authors sharing the same primary cancer subspecialty designation. Individual author impact and productive period were analyzed as a function of gender and subspecialty.FindingsFrom 1946-2018, the network grew to 29,197 authors and 697,084 co-authors. While 99.4% of authors were directly or indirectly connected as of 2018, the network had very few connections and was very siloed by cancer subspecialty. Small numbers of individuals were highly connected and had disproportionate impact (scale-free effects). Women were under-represented and likelier to have lower impact, shorter productive periods (P<0.001 for both comparisons), less centrality, and a greater proportion of co-authors in their same subspecialty. The past 30 years were characterized by a trend towards increased authorship by women, with new author parity anticipated in 2032. However, women remain a distinct minority of first/last authors, with parity not anticipated for 50+ years.InterpretationThe network of cancer clinical trialists is best characterized as a strategic or “mixed-motive” network, with cooperative and competitive elements influencing its appearance.Network effects e.g., low centrality, which may limit access to high-profile individuals, likely contribute to ongoing disparities.FundingVanderbilt Initiative for Interdisciplinary Research; National Institutes of Health; National Science FoundationResearch in contextEvidence before this studyWe reviewed the literature on social networks from the 1800’s to 2018. Additionally, MEDLINE was searched for (“Social Networking”[Mesh] OR “Social Network Analysis”) AND (“Clinical Trials as Topic”[Mesh] OR “Hematology”[Mesh] OR “Medical Oncology”[Mesh]) without date restriction. The MEDLINE search yielded 43 results, of which 8 were relevant; none considered gender nor temporality in their analyses. To our knowledge, there has not been any similar study of the dynamic social network of clinical trialists from the inception of the fields of medical oncology and hematology to the present.Added value of this studyThis is the first dynamic social network analysis of cancer clinical trialists. We found that the network was sparse and siloed with a small number of authors having disproportionate impact and influence as measured by network metrics such as PageRank; these metrics have become more disproportionate over time. Women were under-represented and likelier to have lower impact, shorter productive periods, less network centrality, and a greater proportion of co-authors in their same cancer subspecialty.Implications of all the available evidenceWhile gender disparities have been demonstrated in many fields including hematology/oncology, our analysis is the first to show that network factors themselves are significantly implicated in gender disparity. The increasing coalescence of the network by traditional cancer type and around a small number of high-impact individuals implies challenges when the field pivots from traditionally disease-oriented subspecialties to a precision oncology paradigm. New mechanisms are needed to ensure diversity of clinical trialists.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (10-11) ◽  
pp. 3187-3204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Yong Zang

Conventional phase II clinical trials evaluate the treatment effects under the assumption of patient homogeneity. However, due to inter-patient heterogeneity, the effect of a treatment may differ remarkably among subgroups of patients. Besides patient’s individual characteristics such as age, gender, and biomarker status, a substantial amount of this heterogeneity could be due to the spatial variation across geographic regions because of unmeasured or unknown spatially varying environmental and social exposures. In this article, we propose a hierarchical Bayesian adaptive design for two-arm randomized phase II clinical trials that accounts for the spatial variation as well as patient’s individual characteristics. We treat the treatment efficacy as an ordinal outcome and quantify the desirability of each possible category of the ordinal efficacy using a utility function. A cumulative probit mixed model is used to relate efficacy to patient-specific covariates and geographic region spatial effects. Spatial dependence between regions is induced through the conditional autoregressive priors on the spatial effects. A two-stage design is proposed to adaptively assign patients to desirable treatments according to each patient’s spatial information and individual covariates and make treatment recommendations at the end of the trial based on the overall treatment effect. Simulation studies show that our proposed design has good operating characteristics and significantly outperforms an alternative phase II trial design that ignores the spatial variation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document