scholarly journals Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients with Cancer Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 5829
Author(s):  
Pamela Trillo Aliaga ◽  
Dario Trapani ◽  
José Luis Sandoval ◽  
Edoardo Crimini ◽  
Gabriele Antonarelli ◽  
...  

Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients, with questions remaining about their safety and efficacy in this population. Patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials receive novel treatments with unknown efficacy and safety profiles. Studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in these patients are urgently required. This is a retrospective, real-world, cohort study of patients receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines between 1 February and 25 June 2021 at the Division of New Drugs Development for Innovative Therapies of the European Institute of Oncology. One hundred thirteen patients were enrolled, 40 in early-phase clinical trials, and 20 under novel immunotherapy agents. Nearly three-quarters of the patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) after the first dose (1D) (74.3%) and second dose (2D) (72.6%). Most of the AEs were local (67.3% 1D and 61.9% after 2D), while 31.8% (1D) and 38.1% (2D) of the patients had systemic AEs. No AEs above grade 2 were observed. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, including patients receiving novel immunotherapy compounds. All cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of ongoing treatments or enrollment in early-phase trials.

Author(s):  
Marta Cortes ◽  
Fernando Carceller ◽  
Alba Rubio-San-Simon ◽  
Sucheta Vaidya ◽  
Francisco Bautista ◽  
...  

Objectives. Neuroblastoma is the most common extracranial tumour in children, and prognosis for refractory and relapsed disease is still poor. Early Phase clinical trials play a pivotal role in the development of novel drugs. Ensuring adequate recruitment is crucial. The primary aim was to determine the rate of participation trials for children with refractory/relapsed neuroblastoma in two of the largest Drug Development European institutions. Methods. Data from patients diagnosed with refractory/relapsed neuroblastoma between January 2012 and December 2018 at the two institutions were collected and analysed. Results. Overall, 48 patients were included. A total of 31 (65%) refractory/relapsed cases were enrolled in early Phase trials. The main reasons for not participating in clinical trials included: not fulfilling eligibility criteria prior to consent (12/17, 70%) and screening failure (2/17, 12%). Median time on trial was 4.3 months (range 0.6-13.4). Most common cause for trial discontinuation was disease progression (67.7%). Median overall survival was longer in refractory (28 months, 95% CI, 20.9-40.2) than in relapsed patients (14 months, 95% CI, 8.1-20.1)) [p=0,034]. Conclusions. Although two thirds of children with refractory/relapsed neuroblastoma were enrolled in early Phase trials, recruitment rates can still be improved. The main cause for not participating on trials was not fulfilling eligibility criteria prior to consent, mainly due to performance status and short life expectancy. This study highlights the hurdles to access to innovative therapies for children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastomas and identifies key areas of development to improve recruitment to early phase trials.


2018 ◽  
Vol 119 (8) ◽  
pp. 937-939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Watson ◽  
Jessica Menis ◽  
Capucine Baldini ◽  
Patricia Martin-Romano ◽  
Jean-Marie Michot ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6543-6543
Author(s):  
K. P. Weinfurt ◽  
D. M. Seils ◽  
J. P. Tzeng ◽  
K. L. Compton ◽  
D. P. Sulmasy ◽  
...  

6543 Background: Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented. Such concerns are based on assumptions about what patients mean when they respond to questions about likelihood of benefit. In this study, we explored some of these assumptions. Methods: Participants were 27 women and 18 men in phase 1 or 2 oncology trials and randomized to 1 of 3 interview protocols corresponding to 3 target questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency-type (‘Out of 100 patients who participate in this study, how many do you expect will have their cancer controlled as a result of the experimental therapy?‘); belief-type (‘How confident are you that the experimental therapy will control your cancer?‘); and vague (‘What is the chance that the experimental therapy will control cancer?‘). In semistructured interviews, we queried participants about how they understood and answered the target question. Each participant then answered and discussed one of the other target questions. Results: Participants tended to provide higher expectations in response to the belief-type question (median, 80) than in response to the frequency-type or vague questions (medians, 50) (P=.02). Only 7 (16%) participants said their answers were based on what they were told during the consent process. The most common justifications for responses involved positive attitude (n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health (n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with high (>70%) expectations of benefit (n=11 [85%]) and least common among those with low (<50%) expectations of benefit (n=3 [27%]) (P=.04). Conclusions: We identified two factors that should be considered when determining whether high expectations of benefit are signs of misunderstanding. First, participants report different expectations of benefit depending on how the question is asked. Second, the justifications participants give for their answers suggest that many participants use their responses to express hope rather than to describe their understanding of the clinical trial. These findings should inform methods for evaluating the quality of informed consent in early-phase trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e55-e61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard A. Zaren ◽  
Suresh Nair ◽  
Ronald S. Go ◽  
Rebecca A. Enos ◽  
Keith S. Lanier ◽  
...  

The authors conclude that community cancer centers are capable of conducting early-phase trials; infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S1097-S1098
Author(s):  
P. Jittla ◽  
D. Graham ◽  
C. Zhou ◽  
J. Halliwell ◽  
S. O'Reilly ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4227-4227
Author(s):  
Jenny O'Nions ◽  
Anna Cowley ◽  
Hakim-Moulay Dehbi ◽  
Dima El-Sharkawi ◽  
Shirley D'Sa ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The optimal management of relapsed/refractory lymphoma is a significant clinical challenge. Early phase clinical trials are primarily designed to assess safety but also represent options for patients with limited therapeutic choices. Outcomes for lymphoma patients on early phase trials have previously been reported as single centre cohorts or grouped analyses with other malignancies. We performed a novel meta-analysis of publically available reports of early phase trials in lymphoma and compared the outcomes with those from our early phase trials unit. Methods: The outcomes of lymphoma patients enrolled on early phase trials at a UK tertiary centre were reviewed. AEs were graded according to CTCAE v4.0 and response criteria evaluated per protocol. Patient and therapy characteristics, AEs and best clinical responses were summarised by descriptive statistics. Individual-patient survival data were analysed using Kaplan-Meier method and survival curves compared with the log-rank test. A systematic literature review was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE and clinicaltrials.gov to identify publicly available reports of early phase clinical trials reported in 2016-2017 and data was extracted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of ORRs were performed using random-effect models. Results: 50 patients were enrolled onto 9 Phase I and I/II trials between March 2012 and June 2018, Four patients participated in 2 trials, considered separate events. 5 IMPs were small molecular inhibitors, 4 immunotherapies, 4 first in human and 8 investigated as monotherapy. Diagnoses included 42 aggressive NHL (aNHL) [30 DLBCL, 3 PMBCL, 3 Richters, 1 MCL, 5 T cell], 10 indolent NHL (5 WM, 2 FL, 2 MZL, 1 CLL/SLL) and 2 HL. Median age was 54 yr (27-83), 72% male, with a median time from diagnosis of 22.5 months and median 3 prior lines of therapy (range 1-8). Patients received a median number of 2 cycles of IMP (range 1-28) over 57.5 days (IQR: 37-116). 42.6% experienced grade 3-4 toxicity and 31.5% required dose interruptions of >7 days. ORR and clinical benefit rate (≥SD) were 28% and 47% respectively (CR 4%, PR 24%, SD 19%). Patients were followed up for a median of 11.4 months. Median PFS and OS were 2.3 and 6.8 months respectively, with PFS and OS at 3, 6 and 12 months being 45.8%, 34.4%, 26.5% and 58.4%, 45.4% and 38.8%. Median OS was greater for those who received <4 vs ≥ 4 prior lines of treatment (9.6 vs 5.2 months, p-value log-rank test = 0.1) and those with indolent lymphoma vs aNHL (8.2 vs 6.4 months). Patients with DLBCL had a median OS of 6.8 months; ABC subtype had inferior median OS vs GC (3.4 versus 17.6 months [p-value 0.1]). Study withdrawal was due to disease progression, toxicity and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. After trial, 5.6% proceeded to SCT, 33.3% patients received other treatment, 38.9% received palliation (subsequent outcome unknown in 16.7%). 164 lymphoma trial reports were included in the meta-analysis detailing outcomes of 4537 patients (Table 2). All studies were Phase I (72.6%) or I/II and 78% included only patients with lymphoma (all other trials included reported subgroup analysis of lymphoma patients). 95.7% of trials evaluated a single IMP, 52.4% used combinations of agents. IMPs most frequently investigated were small molecule inhibitors (25.6%), antibody-drug conjugates (11.6%) and epigenetic modifiers (10.4%). Immunotherapy trials comprise 36.1% of studies, including ADCs, checkpoint inhibitors (7.32%), naked antibodies (9.2%) and cellular therapies including CAR-T (7.93%). The ORR of all patients was 54.2% (95% CI 49.6% - 58.8%). Subset analysis showed that cellular therapies studies reported a pooled ORR of 62.5% (50.9 - 72.8) and antibody therapies 58.3 (46.7 - 69.2). Conclusion: The outcomes of lymphoma patients on early phase trials is historically perceived as very poor, partly due to the grouping of analysis with other malignancies. Our cohort had an ORR of 28% and OS at 6 months of 58.4%. The meta-analysis of global studies reporting lymphoma specific outcomes, revealed an ORR of 54.2%. This included all histological subtypes and some previously untreated patients. Our cohort was enriched for relapsed aNHL, which may account for the inferior ORR in our cohort. Together, both data sets indicate improved outcomes compared to historical reports and support enrolment of suitable patients into phase I trials when conventional options are exhausted. Disclosures Ardeshna: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Popat:Amgen: Honoraria. Townsend:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document