Search

Purpose: Despite the expansion of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) indications, the relationship between ICI dose and toxicity or response is not well established. To understand this correlation, we performed a meta-analysis of ICI trials that used dose escalation., Experimental Design: We searched PubMed and abstracts presented at (inter)national meetings for trials using FDA-approved ICIs. The reported rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (G3-5 AE), immune-related adverse events (irAE), and response were correlated with doses within each ICI using marginal exact generalized linear models., Results: A total of 74 trials (7,469 patients) published between January 2010 and January 2017 were included. For ipilimumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 34% with a significant 27% reduced risk in lower doses ( P = 0.002). However, no relationship was observed between dose and irAEs or response. For nivolumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 20.1% which was lower in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or melanoma ( P ≤ 0.05) with no dose-toxicity relationship. In melanoma and NSCLC, a dose-response association was observed, which was not observed in RCC. For pembrolizumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 13.3%, which was lower in melanoma compared with NSCLC ( P = 0.03) with no dose-toxicity relationship. In melanoma, lower dose levels correlated with decreased odds of response ( P = 0.01), a relationship that was not observed in NSCLC., Conclusions: Our analysis shows a lack of consistent dose-toxicity or dose-response correlation with ICIs. Therefore, dose escalation is not an appropriate design to conduct ICI studies. Here we present an innovative trial design for immune-modulating agents., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

More than 70% of breast cancers contain lymphocytic infiltration in the stroma, and preclinical studies suggest that immunoediting and partial control of cancer progression by the local immune microenvironment operate in most breast cancers. Consistent with this hypothesis, a large number of studies demonstrated a favorable prognostic and chemotherapy response predictive role for immune infiltration in breast cancer. The evidence is particularly strong for triple-negative and HER2-positive cancers. The development of clinically effective immune checkpoint inhibitors now provides an opportunity to test the therapeutic potential of augmenting the local antitumor immune response. Several phase I clinical trials using single-agent anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies demonstrated objective tumor response rates, with remarkably durable responses, in heavily pretreated, metastatic, triple-negative cancers and somewhat lower responses in estrogen receptor-positive cancers. Currently, close to 50 ongoing, or soon to open, clinical trials evaluate the role of this new treatment modality in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2105-10. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Phase I clinical trials are generally conducted to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the biologically active dose (BAD) using a traditional dose-escalation design. This design may not be applied to cancer vaccines, given their unique mechanism of action. The FDA recently published "Guidance for Industry: Clinical Considerations for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines." However, many questions about the design of cancer vaccine studies remain unanswered., Experimental Design: We analyzed the toxicity profile in 239 phase I therapeutic cancer vaccine trials. We addressed the ability of dose escalation to determine the MTD or the BAD in trials that used a dose-escalation design., Results: The rate of grade 3/4 vaccine-related systemic toxicities was 1.25 adverse events per 100 patients and 2 per 1,000 vaccines. Only two of the 127 dose-escalation trials reported vaccine-related dose limiting toxicities, both of which used bacterial vector vaccines. Out of the 116 trials analyzed for the dose-immune response relationship, we found a statistically significant dose-immune response correlation only when the immune response was measured by antibodies (P < 0.001) or delayed type hypersensitivity (P < 0.05). However, the increase in cellular immune response did not appear further sustainable with the continued increase in dose., Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that the risks of serious toxicities with therapeutic cancer vaccines are extremely low and that toxicities do not correlate with dose levels. Accordingly, the conventional dose-escalation design is not suitable for cancer vaccines with few exceptions. Here, we propose an alternative design for therapeutic cancer vaccine development., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To determine whether the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH; London, UK) prognostic score for phase I patients can be validated in a large group of individuals seen in a different center and whether other prognostic variables are also relevant, we present an analysis of 1,181 patients treated in the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC; Houston, TX) phase I clinic., Experimental Design: Medical records of 1,181 consecutive patients who were treated on at least one trial in the phase I clinic were reviewed., Results: The median age was 58 years and 50% were women. The median number of prior therapies was four and median survival 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.1-10.9 months]. Independent factors that predicted shorter survival in a multivariate Cox model and could be internally validated included RMH score of >1 (P < 0.0001; albumin <3.5 g/dL; lactate dehydrogenase >upper limit of normal, and >two sites of metastases), gastrointestinal tumor type (P < 0.0001), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1 (P = 0.0004). The median survival was 24.0, 15.2, 8.4, 6.2, and 4.1 months for patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 or 5 of the above risk factors, respectively., Conclusion: The RMH score was validated in a large group of patients at MDACC. Internal validation of the independent prognostic factors for survival led to the development of the MDACC prognostic score, a modification of the RMH score that strengthens it., (©2012 AACR.)

Purpose: The premise for phase I trials for cytostatic agents is different from that of cytotoxic agents. For cytostatic agents, toxicity and efficacy do not necessarily increase monotonically with increasing dose levels, but likely plateau after they reach maximal toxicity or efficacy. Here, we propose a phase I-II trial design to assess both toxicity and efficacy to find the best dose as well as a good dose., Experimental Design: We propose a 2-step dose-finding trial for assessing both toxicity and efficacy for a targeted agent. The 1st step uses a traditional phase I trial design. This step only assesses toxicity and finds the maximal tolerated dose (MTD). For the 2nd step, we propose a modified phase II selection design for 2 or 3 dose levels at and below the MTD to determine efficacy and evaluate each dose level by both efficacy and toxicity., Results and Conclusion: Simulation studies are done on several combinations of toxicity and efficacy scenarios to assess the operating statistics of our proposed trial design. We then compare our results with a traditional phase I trial followed by a single-arm phase II trial using the same total sample size. The proposed design does better in most cases than a traditional design using the same overall sample size. This design allows assessing a few dose levels more closely for both efficacy and toxicity and provides greater certainty of having correctly determined the best dose level before launching into a large efficacy trial., (©2010 AACR.)

Advances in our knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved in cancer biology have contributed to an increase in novel target-specific oncology therapeutics. Unfortunately, clinical development of new drugs is an expensive and slow process, and the patient and financial resources needed to study the vast number of potential therapies are limited, requiring novel approaches to clinical trial design and patient recruitment. In addition, traditional efficacy endpoints may not be adequate to fully determine the therapeutic worth of the new classes of targeted agents. In this new era of drug development, it has become increasingly clear that new clinical trial design paradigms that examine nontraditional endpoints have become necessary to assist in prioritizing the development of the most promising agents. It is also vital that individual patient management be considered, and the subpopulations of patients most likely to derive benefit or experience harm from a new therapy be identified as early as possible. Phase I and II clinical trials allow investigators doing clinical research the opportunity to define these critical endpoints and subpopulations early on, before conducting large-scale randomized phase III clinical trials, which require an abundance of financial and patient resources., (©2010 AACR.)

The goals and objectives of phase 1 clinical trials are changing to include further evaluation of endpoints such as molecular targeted effects, in addition to dose-toxicity profile of the investigational agent. Because of these changes in focus, the National Cancer Institute and Investigational Drug Steering Committee's Task Force on Clinical Trial Design met to evaluate the most efficient ways to design and implement early clinical trials with novel therapeutics. Clinical approaches discussed included the conventional 3 + 3 cohort expansion phase 1 design, multi-institutional phase 1 studies, accelerated titration designs, continual reassessment methods, the study of specific target patient populations, and phase 0 studies. Each of these approaches uniquely contributes to some aspect of the phase 1 study, with all focused on dose and schedule determination, patient safety, and limited patient exposure to ineffective doses of investigational agent. The benefit of labor-intensive generation of preliminary biomarker evidence of target inhibition, as well as the value of molecular profiling of the study population, is considered. New drug development is expensive and the failure rate remains high. By identifying patient populations expected to respond to the study agent and tailoring the treatment with a novel drug, investigators will be one step closer to personalizing cancer treatment. The "fail early and fast" approach is acceptable if the appropriate patient population is evaluated in the phase 1 trial. The approaches outlined in this overview address the merits, advantages, disadvantages, and obstacles encountered during first in human studies.

Phase I clinical trials represent the first step in bringing promising new treatments from the laboratory to the clinic. Although the importance of phase I clinical trials is widely recognized, there is currently no consensus among the scientific, medical, and statistical communities on how best to do these studies in humans. With the advent of targeted therapies, it has become evident that we need to tailor the design of phase I studies for the particular drug class under investigation and any endpoints that are being defined. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) provides broad external scientific and clinical input on the design and prioritization of early-phase clinical trials with agents for which the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) holds an Investigational New Drug (IND) application through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The IDSC has formed a number of task forces and working groups, including the Clinical Trial Design Task Force and the Biomarker Working Group, many with membership from within the IDSC as well as external experts, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory authorities. The Clinical Trials Design Taskforce sponsored a Phase I Workshop with the primary goal being to develop consensus recommendations for the optimal design of phase I studies. The primary focus included (1) efficient trial designs, (2) phase I drug combinations, and (3) appropriate statistical and correlative endpoints. In this CCR Focus series, articles summarize key aspects and recommendations on phase I studies (including combination trials), such as design, use of biomarkers, the European Union and Japanese perspectives on design, requirements for first-in-human and other phase I studies, and ensuring regulatory and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) compliance. A final article summarizes recommendations for the design and conduct of phase II studies.

Although the concept of a phase 0 trial is a relatively new one, there has been a slowly increasing trend toward basing early clinical trial designs on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic end points that has been developing over many years. This article will review the early cancer trial methodologies and the various techniques that have been used to refine them. Several illustrative examples will be presented showing their relevance to trial designs using pharmacodynamic end points and targeted agents. Some criteria for characterizing suitable phase 0 end points are suggested. Four trial designs that are essentially developed for cytotoxic agents using the maximal tolerated dose as an end point are described. Although these trials were not designed with the use of more sophisticated pharmacodynamic end points (such as the measurement of the effect of a targeted agent on its target), they have been developed to optimize the speed with which a dose needed to achieve a particular effect can be determined and are, to this extent, relevant to the design of studies with pharmacodynamic end points.

Worldwide, cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. An increased understanding of the disease and its process has resulted in a multitude of new targeted therapies. The costs as well as time from drug discovery to market, however, remain staggeringly high and protracted, with the majority of compounds never reaching phase III. The concept of an exploratory or phase 0 trial was introduced as a mechanism to enhance and accelerate the overall process of new oncologic drug development. Performance of a phase 0 study allows researchers to better understand the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of compounds in human subjects before initiation of phase I trials. Data gleaned from a phase 0 trial are beneficial not only in prioritizing promising compounds but also in allowing the modification of phase I study design before initiation. To date, few researchers have taken advantage of the potential benefits of phase 0 trials. This review focuses on the purpose as well as the potential merits of phase 0 trials from the perspective of a pharmaceutical company. The review summarizes the experience of a team of researchers with ABT-888, a novel poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase agent that inhibits an enzyme critical for repairing damage to DNA, which is one of the first compounds to be investigated using the phase 0 clinical trial design.

We propose a new paradigm for the clinical evaluation of new cancer therapies. It entails adjusting the search for the optimal dose on the basis of measurable patient characteristics that may be predictive of adverse responses to treatment, and extending this search beyond phase I and into phases II and III. We provide examples of (a) how the fine-tuning of dose may involve utilization of patient-specific attributes to obtain a personalized treatment regimen, and (b) how novel methods for phase I design can be used to update the working dose for the conduct of phase II and III cancer clinical trials. These examples should be interpreted as an enticement for the development of new methods to implement the proposed new paradigm.