Search

Therapeutic proteins, including monoclonal antibodies, are typically manufactured using clonally derived, stable host cell lines, since consistent and predictable cell culture performance is highly desirable. However, selecting and preparing banks of stable clones takes considerable time, which inevitably extends overall development timelines for new therapeutics by delaying the start of subsequent activities, such as the scale-up of manufacturing processes. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with its intense pressure for accelerated development strategies, we used a novel transposon-based Leap-In Transposase® system to rapidly generate high-titer stable pools and then used them directly for large scale-manufacturing of an anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibody under cGMP. We performed the safety testing of our non-clonal cell bank, then used it to produce material at a 200L-scale for preclinical safety studies and formulation development work, and thereafter at 2000L scale for supply of material for a Phase 1 clinical trial. Testing demonstrated the comparability of critical product qualities between the two scales and, more importantly, that our final clinical trial product met all pre-set product quality specifications. The above expediated approach provided clinical trial material within 4.5 months, in comparison to 12-14 months for production of clinical trial material via the conventional approach., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The purpose of this study was to identify key deficiencies in pediatric oncology early phase clinical trial protocols in Germany and to provide guidance for efficient trial protocol development. A systematic review of the response letters of German competent authorities (CAs) and Ethics Committees to phase I/II pediatric oncology trial submissions in the period from 2014 to 2019 was performed. Documents were requested from all five Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology in Germany (GPOH) phase I/II trial networks plus all nine German Innovative Therapies for Children with Consortium Cancer (ITCC) centers. A blinded dataset containing aggregated data from 33 studies was analyzed for validation. All deficiencies were reviewed, listed, and weighted using a structured matrix according to frequency, category, significance, and feasibility. In total, documents of 17 trials from 6 different sites were collected. Two hundred fifty deficiencies identified by the CAs were identified and categorized into eight categories. "Toxicity and safety" was the most prominent category (27.6%), followed by "Manufacturing and Import" (18%). The majority of deficiencies were categorized as minor and potential measures as easy to address, but an important group of major and difficult to implement deficiencies was also identified. The blinded validation dataset confirmed these findings. The majority of the EC deficiencies could be resolved by changing the wording in the patient-facing documents. In conclusion, this study was able to detect a pattern of key deficiencies. Most of the shortcomings can be anticipated by minor changes in the protocol and increased awareness can prevent time-consuming revisions, withdrawals, or even rejections. A corresponding guideline describing key regulatory aspects is provided., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling., Objective: This study's purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials., Methods: The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project's end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles., Results: The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time., Implications: Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This paper evaluates gender bias in the published clinical trials of Vortioxetine. We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of Vortioxetine for the treatment of depression. The literature search was performed using MEDLINE and following the corresponding international recommendations. We identified 42 articles, of which 23 were included. The proportion of women ranged from 47%-75% and the percentage of women included in the 10,404 total patients sample was 65%. The separate analysis of the main variable between the subpopulations of men and women was only carried out in 3/23 publications included. In contrast, 6/23 trials analyzed secondary variables separated by sex. No trials discussed the results separately by sex. The proportion of women included was slightly higher than that in clinical trials of other antidepressants. However, the analysis of the main result or secondary variables by sex, as well as discussing the results separately by sex, are scarce. This gives rise to gender bias in these works., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optimal Phase-II design to evaluate new therapies in refractory/relapsed Ewing sarcomas (ES) remains imperfectly defined., Objectives: Recurrent/refractory ES phase-I/II trials analysis to improve trials design., Methods: Comprehensive review of therapeutic trials registered on five databases (who.int/trialsearch, clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, e-cancer.fr, and umin.ac.jp) and/or published in PubMed/ASCO/ESMO websites, between 2005 and 2018, using the criterion: (Ewing sarcoma OR bone sarcoma OR sarcoma) AND (Phase-I or Phase-II)., Results: The 146 trials identified (77 phase-I/II, 67 phase-II, and 2 phase-II/III) tested targeted (34%), chemo- (23%), immune therapies (19%), or combined therapies (24%). Twenty-three trials were ES specific and 48 had a specific ES stratum. Usually multicentric (88%), few trials were international (30%). Inclusion criteria cover the recurrent ES age range for only 12% of trials and allowed only accrual of measurable diseases (RECIST criteria). Single-arm design was the most frequent (88%) testing mainly single drugs (61%), only 5% were randomized. Primary efficacy outcome was response rate (RR=CR+PR; Complete+Partial response) (n = 116/146; 79%), rarely progression-free or overall survival (16% PFS and 3% OS). H0 and H1 hypotheses were variable (3%-25% and 20%-50%, respectively). The 62 published trials enrolled 827 ES patients. RR was poor (10%; 15 CR=1.7%, 68 PR=8.3%). Stable disease was the best response for 186 patients (25%). Median PFS/OS was of 1.9 (range 1.3-14.7) and 7.6 months (5-30), respectively. Eleven (18%) published trials were considered positive, with median RR/PFS/OS of 15% (7%-30%), 4.5 (1.3-10), and 16.6 months (6.9-30), respectively., Conclusion: This review supports the need to develop the international randomized phase-II trials across all age ranges with PFS as primary endpoint., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In recent years, the landscape in clinical trial development has changed to involve many molecularly targeted agents, immunotherapies, or radiotherapy, as a single agent or in combination. Given their different mechanisms of action and lengths of administration, these agents have different toxicity profiles, which has resulted in numerous challenges when applying traditional designs such as the 3 + 3 design in dose-finding clinical trials. Novel methods have been proposed to address these design challenges such as combinations of therapies or late-onset toxicities. However, their design and implementation require close collaboration between clinicians and statisticians to ensure that the appropriate design is selected to address the aims of the study and that the design assumptions are pertinent to the study drug. The goal of this paper is to provide guidelines for appropriate questions that should be considered early in the design stage to facilitate the interactions between clinical and statistical teams and to improve the design of dose-finding clinical trials for novel anticancer agents., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: There is increasing use of Phase I statistical designs to find a dose that causes rapidly emerging and particularly concerning severe or life-threatening toxicities (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs) in a specified percent of patients most commonly 25%. While a convenient statistical framework, the foundation for selecting any specified target DLT rate, and its relevance to the recommended Phase II dose is generally lacking., Method: We surveyed 78 medical oncologists, most (69%) with experience as a principal investigator on a Phase I study, to ascertain their opinions related to this approach to Phase I studies and the targets often chosen., Results: Eighty-seven percent of respondents preferred severe toxicities in only 5%-10% of patients, consistent with 58% of respondents noting that 10% or fewer patients experience severe toxicities in the first cycle with standard outpatient treatments. The survey also documented in an example that the majority (62%) of physicians modify their patient selection during the conduct of the study based on observed toxicity and 78% note that higher toxicity is acceptable in patients where a cure is more likely., Conclusion: DLT-target rate designs search for a single target that is rarely well-supported in a patient population that is not stable. The most common target used is inconsistent with the toxicity of most clinically used drugs and investigator preference and can lead to the pursuit of unacceptable doses. Use of Phase I trial designs with a target DLT rate should be limited to settings with a well-justified target and should specify how the target relates to the recommended Phase II dose., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have confirmed that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this work., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people., Methods: We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression., Results: Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively., Conclusion: The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Our objective was to determine the correlation between preclinical toxicity found in animal models (mouse, rat, dog and monkey) and clinical toxicity reported in patients participating in Phase 1 oncology clinical trials., Methods: We obtained from two major early-Phase clinical trial centres, preclinical toxicities from investigational brochures and clinical toxicities from published Phase 1 trials for 108 drugs, including small molecules, biologics and conjugates. Toxicities were categorised according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Human toxicities were also categorised based on their reported clinical grade (severity). Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated to determine the probability that clinical studies would/would not show a particular toxicity category given that it was seen in preclinical toxicology analysis. Statistical analyses also included kappa statistics, and Matthews (MCC) and Spearman correlation coefficients., Results: Overall, animal toxicity did not show strong correlation with human toxicity, with a median PPV of 0.65 and NPV of 0.50. Similar results were obtained based on kappa statistics and MCC., Conclusions: There is an urgent need to assess more novel approaches to the type and conduct of preclinical toxicity studies in an effort to provide better predictive value for human investigation.

What Is Known and Objective: Focusing on the tolerance and pharmacokinetics of new drugs, phase I clinical drug trials are characterized by high risk, poor compliance and management difficulties. High-quality clinical drug trials ensure subjects' safety while extending new drug research and development. Many studies have examined micro-level concerns of trial design and implementation rather than macro-level factors. Accordingly, we evaluated the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (trial quality) and analysed the influence of organizational management factors from a macro-level perspective., Methods: We surveyed staff at clinical trial institutions engaged in phase I clinical drug trials in China using convenience sampling. We employed a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, comprising five items on phase I clinical drug trial quality and items on organizational management factors. Data from 604 questionnaires were analysed. We utilized a logistic regression model to estimate the influence of organizational management factors on trial quality, using individual demographic factors as controlling variables., Results and Discussion: The trial quality score was 3.81, which indicates that substantial improvement is required. Government regulation, industry management and medical institution management had a positive effect on trial quality: β = 0.842, 0.691 and 0.579, respectively; P < .01. Contract research organization management had a negative effect on trial quality: β = -0.476; P = .013. Research team management had no effect on trial quality: β = 0.325; P = .141., What Is New and Conclusion: This study is the first to model the influence of organizational management factors on the quality of phase I drug trials involving different organizations from a macro-perspective. Efforts are needed to help research teams take responsibility for trial quality and to correct the negative impact of contract research organizations on trial quality., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply challenged healthcare systems and care of patients with cancer. Phase 1 studies are among the most complicated clinical trials and require thorough patient selection, as well as intensive patient monitoring. In this perspective, we discuss the key factors that should be considered for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-positive patients with cancer enrolled in such trials. We notably present the risks and challenges raised by COVID-19-infected phase 1 patients, in terms of safety, toxicity causality assessment, drug efficacy evaluation and clinical research priorities. We finally propose some guidelines for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-infected patients in a pandemic time., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of this article is to understand the pros and cons of various methods involved in first-in-human (FIH) dose calculation and act decisively in dose escalations when calculating the maximum tolerated dose., Subjects and Methods: We reviewed early phase clinical trials for methods of FIH dose and dose-escalation steps and discuss them in line with existing guidelines. We also reviewed the clinical trial registry to recognize trends in trial registration in recent years and after a massive failure in a few trials., Results: Phase 1 trials of TGN 1412 and BIA10-2474 would always be remembered as catastrophes for pharmaceutical development plans. Quite often than not, healthy human volunteers are the guinea pigs in this stage of drug development. And, the most important aspect of designing an early phase study is deciding upon the dose to be started with, apart from the selection of cohort and escalation steps. The common principles used for FIH dose calculation include no observed adverse effect level, minimum anticipated biological effect level, pharmacologically active dose, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach, and similar drug comparison approach., Conclusion: Early phase clinical trials are basically foundation stones on which lies the entire onus of the later stages of development. Deciding FIH dose is a crucial step that necessitates the incorporation of detailed data from the preclinical stages and application of the most conservative approach for the safety/benefit of the volunteers in these studies.

This study aimed to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and data were collected from 604 respondents at 69 institutions in China engaged in phase I clinical drug trials. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop the survey tool. Structural equation modeling was used to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. The results showed that the final survey tool had good reliability and validity (Cronbach's α=0.938, root mean square error of approximation=0.074, comparative fit index=0.962, and Tucker-Lewis index=0.955). The model included five dimensions: government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, research team management, and contract research organization (CRO) management. In total, 22 measurement items were obtained. The structural equation model indicated government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, and CRO management significantly affected the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (β=0.195, β=0.331, β=0.279, and β=-0.267, respectively; P<0.05). Research team management had no effect on the quality of trials (β=0.041, P=0.610). In conclusion, the model is valuable for identifying factors influencing phase I clinical drug trials and guiding quality management practices.

Oncology drug development is among the most challenging of any therapeutic area, with first-in-human trials expected to deliver information on both safety and activity. Until recently, therapeutic approaches in oncology focused on cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, ruling out even the possibility of enrolling normal healthy volunteers (NHVs) in clinical trials due to safety considerations. The emergence of noncytotoxic modalities, including molecularly targeted agents with more favorable safety profiles, however, has led to increasing numbers of clinical pharmacology studies of these agents being conducted in NHVs. Beyond rapid enrollment and cost savings, there are other advantages of conducting specific types of studies in NHVs with the goal of more appropriate dosing decisions in certain subsets of the intended patient populations, allowing for enrollment of such patients in therapeutic trials from which they might otherwise have been excluded. Nevertheless, the decision must be carefully weighed against potential disadvantages, and although the considerations surrounding conduct of clinical trials using NHVs are generally well-defined in most other therapeutic areas, they are less well-defined in oncology., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and long-term effects; required medical procedures; the type of trial, including its design, therapeutic area of investigation, and dosage of the drug; the amount of compensation; and trust in the research clinic. In making determinations about the study risks, participants rely on information provided during the consent process, their own and others' experiences in clinical trials, and comparisons among studies. Our findings indicate that the informed consent process succeeds in communicating well about certain types of risk information while simultaneously creating lacunae that are problematically filled by participants through their collective experiences and assumptions about risk. We discuss the ethical implications of these findings and make recommendations for improving the consent process in healthy volunteer trials.

Background: Numerous phase I trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI)-based combinations are currently being conducted to improve response rates observed with single agents. However, methodology varies across studies, especially regarding the use of dose escalation., Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and major oncology meetings libraries for phase I trials reported between 2011 and 2018, containing at least one CPI [CLTA-4 blocking antibody or a PD(L)1 blocking antibody] plus at least one second agent (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitor, chemotherapy). Dose escalation schemes, target doses and recommended phase II doses (RP2D) were captured in our database for each study. Combination RP2D (combo-RP2D) was compared with target dose., Results: We identified 113 different studies comprising a total of 120 individual cohorts. The backbone was an anti- cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) in 40 cohorts and an anti-PD(L)1 in 80 cohorts. Dose escalation was used for the CPI in 29 (24%) cohorts [11% for anti-PD(L)1 and 50% for anti-CTLA-4] and for the second agent in 55 cohorts (46%). For 31 s agents (26%), the combo-RP2D was significantly lower than the expected target dose. Failure to reach the target dose was explained by the type of second agent form (e.g. small molecules versus monoclonal antibodies) (P < 0.001) and the choice of trial design for the second agent by investigators., Conclusion: Design of studies investigating new CPI-based combinations must consider the type of second agent. Dose escalation is required for combinations with small molecules but is unnecessary with vaccine/virus/dendritic therapies and monoclonal antibodies., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In the era of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), it is recommended to account for toxicity over several cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). We investigated the relationship between the risk of toxicity at cycle 1 and the cumulative incidence of toxicity over subsequent cycles in trials of single MTAs., Methods: On individual patient data from 26 phase I clinical trials of single MTAs provided by the National Cancer Institute, we estimated the probability of first-severe toxicity per treatment cycle as well as the cumulative incidence at, below, and above the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Toxicity was further subclassified into nonhematologic and hematologic. A prediction table was developed to estimate the cumulative incidence up to six cycles based on the toxicity rate observed in the first cycle., Results: Overall, 942 patients were included. For patients treated at the MTD, the probability of first-severe toxicity decreased from 24.8% (95% prediction interval [PI] = 20.3% to 32.9%) to 2.2% (95% PI = 0.1% to 7.7%) from cycle 1 to 6, whereas the cumulative incidence of toxicity reached 51.7% (95% PI = 40.5% to 66.3%) after six cycles. Toxicity rates ranging from 20.0% to 30.0% in the first cycle were associated with 46.8% (95% PI = 39.5% to 54.2%) and 65.8% (95% PI = 57.7% to 73.1%) cumulative incidence after six cycles., Conclusion: This study examined the risk of severe toxicity over time of single MTAs. The cumulative incidence of toxicity at the MTD was higher than the usually accepted toxicity targets, challenging the definition of the RP2D of MTAs. The prediction table may help calibrate the target rate at the RP2D., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Clinical trials in oncology have become increasingly complex because of incorporation of predictive biomarkers and patient selection based on molecular profiling of tumors. We have examined the change in procedures and work intensity in phase 1 oncology trials over the years with several parameters used as surrogates of complexity. Categories that were included as events were clinical evaluations, pharmacokinetic (PK) laboratory tests, non-PK laboratory tests, specific molecular or histological characteristics, questionnaires and subjective assessments, routine clinical and physical examinations, imaging, invasive procedures and others. The information was extracted using a standardized form including study type, tumor type, information on agent, participant characteristics and study mandated events during the first 3 cycles of each protocol. A total of 102 phase I oncology and hematology study protocols that were active at a single institution in 1996, 2006 and 2016 were evaluated. In 2016, there were significantly more (P < 0.05) median number of procedures, outpatient tests, subjective assessments, PK's, molecular profiling, biopsies and medication dispensing times. There were higher median numbers of procedures in studies in hematologic malignancies, testing immunotherapies and those with over 15 inclusion or exclusion criteria. These values also differed significantly (P < .005) when the median values were compared in nonparametric tests. Our results suggest that study related procedures in cancer phase I trials have substantially increased over the last two decades. The successful conduct of early-phase oncology clinical trials in future will require additional research resources.

Purpose: Stopping rules are an essential part of risk management in early phase clinical trials. As well as being necessary for ensuring the safety of participants on clinical trials, they are also a requirement under the revision to the European Medicine Agency's first-in-human and early clinical trial guideline. The increasing complexity and size of modern trial designs (e.g. integrated trials) raise potential issues with risk management, which, if also too complex, presents challenges for both regulators and investigators to implement. Therefore, there is a clear need for a standard, template, or algorithm-based approach to risk management, in particular rules concerning adverse reactions. The purpose of this manuscript is to present template stopping (or adverse reaction, AR) rules that fulfil regulatory requirements and that can be adapted, taking into account trial design, nature of the investigational medicinal product, and anticipated effects., Methods: The template AR rules that use a systematic, objective and consistent process were developed, taking into account severity (using an objective grading system), seriousness, frequency and reversibility of ARs. These rules control decisions relating to individual trial participants, dosing regimens and dose escalation and/or progression to successive trial parts. For ease of use, the template rules consist of a single, one-page table., Results: The template AR rules have been successfully applied to many early phase adaptive integrated trials that received regulatory authorisation and were performed in the UK. This manuscript presents the template rule table and case studies of some trial-specific adaptations., Conclusions: This work demonstrates how a systematic, objective and consistent approach to risk management of large integrated trials can be simple yet robust, facilitating effective decision making and trial progression whilst safeguarding participant safety.

Early-phase specifications are established to ensure that materials used in clinical studies have appropriate product quality, reducing the risk of harm to patients. Currently, guidance is available for specification setting practices at commercial phase. With very limited data and manufacturing experience available, it is not possible to fully align to these expectations at the start of clinical trials. A survey was performed among 19 biopharmaceutical companies to gather information about the current practices for setting specifications in early-phase development. The results indicate that most companies develop platform approaches to support setting specifications at the first-in-human clinical trial stage of development. Based on shared learning across multiple companies, example specification approaches for monoclonal antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates are included. General principles of the example specifications can also be applied to other protein therapeutics and vaccines. Strategies for justification of acceptance criteria are described, along with discussion of considerations for some specific tests. Options for use of non-numerical acceptance criteria are also discussed. While specifications for each molecule must be set considering available molecule-specific information, the presented information leverages shared learning from multiple companies, to provide guidance for early phase specification setting strategies., (Copyright © 2019 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Progress in and better understanding of cancer biology causes a shift in cancer drug development: away from the evaluation of drugs in large tumour histology defined patient populations towards targeted agents in increasingly heterogeneous molecularly defined subpopulations. This requires novel approaches in clinical trial design by academia and industry, and development of new assessment tools by regulatory authorities. Pharmaceutical industry is developing new targeted agents generating many clinical studies, including target combinations. This requires improved operational efficiency by development of innovative trial designs, strategies for early-stage decision making and early selection of candidate drugs with a high likelihood of success. In addition, patient awareness and ethical considerations necessitate that agents will be rapidly available to patients. Regulatory Authorities such as the European Medicine Agency and national agencies recognise that these changes require a different attitude towards benefit-risk analysis for drug approval. The gold standard of randomised confirmatory Phase III trials is not always ethical or feasible when developing drugs for treatment of small cancer populations. Alternative strategies comprise accelerated approval via conditional marketing approval, which can be granted in the EU based on small non-randomised Phase II trials. The paper describes innovative trial designs with their pros and cons and efforts of pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities to deal with the paradigm shift. Furthermore, all stakeholders should continue to share their experiences and discuss problems in order to understand the position and concerns of the other stakeholders to learn from each other and to progress the field of novel oncology clinical trial design., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A milestone step in translational science to transform basic scientific discoveries into therapeutic applications is the advancement of a drug candidate from preclinical studies to initial human testing. First-in-human (FIH) trials serve as the link to advance new promising drug candidates and are conducted primarily to determine the safe dose range for further clinical development. Cross-functional collaboration is essential to ensure efficient and successful FIH trials. The aim of this publication is to serve as a tutorial for conducting FIH trials for both small molecule and biological drug candidates with topics covering regulatory requirements, preclinical safety testing, study design considerations, safety monitoring, biomarker assessment, and global considerations. An emphasis is placed on FIH trial design considerations, including starting dose selection, study size and population, dose escalation scheme, and implementation of adaptive designs. In light of the recent revision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guideline on FIH trials to promote safety and mitigate risk, we also discuss new measures introduced in the guideline that impact FIH trial design., (© 2018 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: Efforts are underway in improving the informed consent process. The success of these efforts to improve quality of informed consent forms (ICFs) for phase I oncology trials has not been previously measured., Methods: We reviewed and compared ICFs of all phase I trials for metastatic cancer conducted between 1986 and 1999 and 2000-2015 periods at our institution. Information pertaining to ICF length, study purpose description, research regimen/methods, potential risks and benefits was extracted. The reading level was assessed by Flesch-Kincaid readability tests., Results: Of 364 ICFs screened, 310 ICFs were included in this analysis. The median length of ICFs from 1986 to 1999 and 2000-2015 was 12 and 23 pages, respectively. Only 42% (1986-1999) and 57% (2000-2015) of ICFs stated that individual participants might not benefit from treatment. Only 21% (1986-1999) and 12% (2000-2015) of all ICFs were written at ≤ 8th grade reading level. The median FRE, FKGL and GFI readability scores of ICFs from 1986 to 1999 were 53.6, 8.8, and 9.5, respectively. The median FRE, FKGL, and GFI scores of studies from 2000 to 2015 were 48.5, 10.7, and 12.4, respectively. These scores indicate that the ICF text was too hard for most people to read. The mechanism of action of the treatment, study schema/calendar, possibility of experiencing unexpected risks or death, and risks to pregnant/lactating women were not reported in a substantial number of forms., Conclusions: Our results show that ICFs for phase I oncology trials over last 30 years have become longer, more difficult to read but are still lacking some important information.

Toxicity studies in juvenile animals (JAS) are sometimes performed to support clinical trials in pediatric oncology patients, and there are differing conclusions on the value of JAS for pediatric drug development. This manuscript provides a review of the pediatric clinical data for 25 molecularly-targeted and 4 biologic anticancer therapeutics. Other publications that evaluated the value of JAS in pediatric drug development focus on differences in toxicity between juvenile animals and adult animals. The present paper examines pediatric-specific clinical findings to focus on dose setting in pediatric oncology patients and safety monitoring in terms of the potential value of JAS. Our assessment demonstrates that pediatric starting doses were safe for all 29 therapeutics examined in that no life-threatening toxicities occurred in the first cohort, and overall the ratio of the pediatric maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the recommended adult dose was close to 1. In addition, the 4 serious adverse events (SAEs) that weren't detectable with standard monitoring plans for pediatric oncology trials would not have been detectable in a standard JAS. This review demonstrates that safe starting doses in pediatric oncology patients for these therapeutics could have been solely based on adult doses without any knowledge of findings in JAS., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In microdose clinical trials a maximum of 100 μg of drug substance is administered to participants, in order to determine the pharmacokinetic properties of the agents. Measuring low plasma concentrations after administration of a microdose is challenging and requires the use of ulta-sensitive equipment. Novel liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) platforms can be used for quantification of low drug plasma levels. Here we describe the development and validation of an LC-MS/MS method for quantification of gemcitabine and its metabolite 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU) in the low picogram per milliliter range to support a microdose trial. The validated assay ranges from 2.5-500 pg/mL for gemcitabine and 250-50,000 pg/mL for dFdU were linear, with a correlation coefficient (r 2 ) of 0.996 or better. Sample preparation with solid phase extraction provided a good and reproducible recovery. All results were within the acceptance criteria of the latest US FDA guidance and EMA guidelines. In addition, the method was successfully applied to measure plasma concentrations of gemcitabine in a patient after administration of a microdose of gemcitabine., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conventional phase I algorithms for finding a phase-2 recommended dose (P2RD) based on toxicity alone is problematic because the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is not necessarily the optimal dose with the most desirable risk-benefit trade-off. Moreover, the increasingly common practice of treating an expansion cohort at a chosen MTD has undesirable consequences that may not be obvious., Patients and Methods: We review the phase I-II paradigm and the EffTox design, which utilizes both efficacy and toxicity to choose optimal doses for successive patient cohorts and find the optimal P2RD. We conduct a computer simulation study to compare the performance of the EffTox design with the traditional 3 + 3 design and the continuous reassessment method., Results: By accounting for the risk-benefit trade-off, the EffTox phase I-II design overcomes the limitations of conventional toxicity-based phase I designs. Numerical simulations show that the EffTox design has higher probabilities of identifying the optimal dose and treats more patients at the optimal dose., Conclusions: Phase I-II designs, such as the EffTox design, provide a coherent and efficient approach to finding the optimal P2RD by explicitly accounting for risk-benefit trade-offs underlying medical decisions.

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.

Background: Dose-escalation trials aim to identify the maximum tolerated dose and, importantly, the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and rely on the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first treatment cycle. Molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) often follow continuous and prolonged administrations, displaying a distinct toxicity profile compared to conventional chemotherapeutics, and classical DLT criteria might not be appropriate to evaluate MTAs' toxicity. We investigated this issue in children., Methods: The Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer Consortium (ITCC) phase I trials of novel anticancer agents between 2004 and 2015 were analysed. Data from investigational product, trial design, items defining DLT/RP2D were extracted. A survey on dose-escalation process, DLTs and RP2D definition was conducted among the ITCC clinical trials committee members., Results: Thirteen phase I trials with 15 dose-escalation cohorts were analysed. They explored 11 MTAs and 2 novel cytotoxics; 12 evaluated DLT during cycle 1. Definition of DLT was heterogeneous: Grade III-IV haematologic toxicities that were transient or asymptomatic and grade III-IV non-haematological toxicities manageable with adequate supportive care were often excluded, whereas some included dose intensity or grade II toxicities into DLT. None of the studies considered delayed toxicity into the RP2D definition., Conclusion: DLTs should be homogeneously defined across trials, limiting the number of exceptions due to specific toxicities. Dose escalation should still be based on safety data from cycle 1, but delayed and overall toxicities, pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamic data should be considered to refine the final RP2D. The evaluation of long-term toxicity in the developing child cannot be adequately addressed in early trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Evaluate the association between the use of phase I expansion cohorts (ECs) and drug performance in phase II as well as time to approval by the FDA. Experimental Design: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE for single-agent dose-finding adult oncology phase I trials published in 2006 to 2011 and subsequent phase II trials. Successful phase II trials were those that met their primary endpoints. Dates of approval were obtained from the Drugs@FDA website in April 2014. A logistic regression model was used to determine the associations between variables and success in phase II. Results: We identified 533 phase I trials evaluating 381 drugs; 112 drugs had at least one phase I trial with an expansion cohort. Phase I trials with expansion cohorts of two to 20 patients were associated with a higher rate of successful phase II trials than those with no expansion cohort [48% vs. 27%; OR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.0; P = 0.037]. Phase II success rates were the same for expansion cohort with two to 20 and more than 20 patients (48% vs. 52%). Other positive associations were disease-specific trials (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = 0.037), industry sponsorship (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7; P = 0.0024), and response rate of 6% to 20% (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.6-5.2; P = 0.0007). Drugs tested in phase I trials with expansion cohorts had a higher rate of 5-year approval (19% vs. 5%; HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-8.8; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of expansion cohorts in phase I trials was associated with success of subsequent phase II trials. However, confounders may play a role in this association. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4020-6. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Although many phase I trials report tumor response, formal analysis of efficacy is deferred to phase II. We reviewed paired phase I and II pediatric oncology trials to ascertain the relationship between phase I and II objective response rate (OR%). Single-agent phase I trials were paired with corresponding phase II trials (comparable study drug, dosing schedule, and population). Phase I trials without efficacy data or a matching phase II trial were excluded. OR% was tabulated for all trials, and phase II authors' subjective conclusions regarding efficacy were documented; 35 pairs of trials were analyzed. The correlation between phase I and II OR% was 0.93. Between phase II studies with a "positive" conclusion versus a "negative" one, there was a statistically significant difference in mean phase I OR% (32.0% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). Thirteen phase II studies were undertaken despite phase I OR% of 0%; only 1 had a "positive" conclusion, and none exceeded OR% of 15%. OR% are highly correlated between phase I and II pediatric oncology trials. Although not a formal measure of drug efficacy, phase I OR% may provide an estimate of phase II response, inform phase II study design, and should be given greater consideration.

Objective: It can be assumed that patients' participation in a phase I study will have an important impact on their partners' life. However, evaluation of partners' experiences while patients are undergoing experimental treatment and of their well-being after the patient's death is lacking. We aimed to explore partners' experience of patients' participation in phase I studies and to investigate their well-being after a patient's death., Method: This was an observational study conducted after the patient's death. Partners of deceased patients who had participated in a phase I study completed a questionnaire designed by us for experience evaluation and the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Inventory of Traumatic Grief, and the RAND-36 Health Survey., Results: The median age of the 58 participating partners was 58 years (range: 51-65), and 67% was female. Partners reported negative effects on patients' quality of life, but only 5% of partners regretted patients' participation. Approximately two years after the patients' death, 19% of partners scored for depression, 36% for psychological distress, and 46% for complicated grief, and partners generally scored significantly lower on social and mental functioning compared to normative comparators., Significance of Results: Although partners reported negative consequences on patients' quality of life, most did not regret patients' participation in the phase I studies. Prevalence of depression, psychological distress, and complicated grief seemed important problems after a patient's death, and these must be considered when shaping further support for partners of patients participating in phase I trials.

We develop a new modeling approach to enhance a recently proposed method to detect increases of contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) on repeated magnetic resonance imaging, which have been used as an indicator for potential adverse events in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. The method signals patients with unusual increases in CEL activity by estimating the probability of observing CEL counts as large as those observed on a patient's recent scans conditional on the patient's CEL counts on previous scans. This conditional probability index (CPI), computed based on a mixed-effect negative binomial regression model, can vary substantially depending on the choice of distribution for the patient-specific random effects. Therefore, we relax this parametric assumption to model the random effects with an infinite mixture of beta distributions, using the Dirichlet process, which effectively allows any form of distribution. To our knowledge, no previous literature considers a mixed-effect regression for longitudinal count variables where the random effect is modeled with a Dirichlet process mixture. As our inference is in the Bayesian framework, we adopt a meta-analytic approach to develop an informative prior based on previous clinical trials. This is particularly helpful at the early stages of trials when less data are available. Our enhanced method is illustrated with CEL data from 10 previous multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Our simulation study shows that our procedure estimates the CPI more accurately than parametric alternatives when the patient-specific random effect distribution is misspecified and that an informative prior improves the accuracy of the CPI estimates., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Accumulating evidence shows that the conventional one-size-fits-all dose-finding paradigm is problematic when applied to different ethnic populations. Because of inter-ethnic heterogeneity, the dosage established in a landmark trial for a certain population may not be generalizable to a different ethnic population, and a follow-up bridge trial is often needed to find the maximum tolerated dose for the new population. We propose the bridging continual reassessment method (B-CRM) to facilitate dose finding for such follow-up bridge trials. The B-CRM borrows information from the landmark trial through a novel estimate of the dose-toxicity curve and accommodates the inter-ethnic heterogeneity using the Bayesian model averaging approach. Extensive simulation studies show that the B-CRM has desirable operating characteristics with a high probability to select the target dose. This article focuses on ethnic heterogeneity, but the proposed method can be directly used to handle other types of patient heterogeneity, for example, patient subgroups defined by prognostic factors or biomarkers. The software to implement the B-CRM design is available for free download at http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~yyuan/., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This paper illustrates how the design and statistical analysis of the primary endpoint of a proof-of-concept study can be formulated within a Bayesian framework and is motivated by and illustrated with a Pfizer case study in chronic kidney disease. It is shown how decision criteria for success can be formulated, and how the study design can be assessed in relation to these, both using the traditional approach of probability of success conditional on the true treatment difference and also using Bayesian assurance and pre-posterior probabilities. The case study illustrates how an informative prior on placebo response can have a dramatic effect in reducing sample size, saving time and resource, and we argue that in some cases, it can be considered unethical not to include relevant literature data in this way., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Dual-agent trials are now increasingly common in oncology research, and many proposed dose-escalation designs are available in the statistical literature. Despite this, the translation from statistical design to practical application is slow, as has been highlighted in single-agent phase I trials, where a 3 + 3 rule-based design is often still used. To expedite this process, new dose-escalation designs need to be not only scientifically beneficial but also easy to understand and implement by clinicians. In this paper, we propose a curve-free (nonparametric) design for a dual-agent trial in which the model parameters are the probabilities of toxicity at each of the dose combinations. We show that it is relatively trivial for a clinician's prior beliefs or historical information to be incorporated in the model and updating is fast and computationally simple through the use of conjugate Bayesian inference. Monotonicity is ensured by considering only a set of monotonic contours for the distribution of the maximum tolerated contour, which defines the dose-escalation decision process. Varied experimentation around the contour is achievable, and multiple dose combinations can be recommended to take forward to phase II. Code for R, Stata and Excel are available for implementation., (© 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Safety assessment beyond the dose-limiting toxicity evaluation period provides relevant information to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of a new treatment. We retrospectively analyzed three phase I trials to illustrate two indicators: per-cycle probability of graded toxicity and cumulative probability of severe toxicity over the treatment period., Patients and Methods: Data were collected from two continual reassessment method (CRM) trials (T1: aviscumine in solid tumors with short time on treatment; T2: erlotinib + radiotherapy in brainstem gliomas with longer time on treatment) and one 3 + 3 design (T3: liposomal doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide combination in ovarian carcinoma). The probability of severe and moderate or severe toxicity per cycle was estimated at each dose level with mixed proportional odds model. The cumulative probability of severe toxicity was also estimated with the time-to-event CRM., Results: Eighty-three patients were included in the three trials; 94, 96 and 72 treatment cycles were administered, in T1, T2 and T3, respectively. Moderate toxicities were at least twice as frequent as severe toxicities. An increased probability of toxicity over time was detected in T3 [P = 0.04; per-cycle probability of severe toxicity: 27% (cycle 1) to 59% (cycle 6) at the RP2D]. At the RP2D, 37% of patients experienced at least one severe toxicity over the first six cycles in T2, and 78% in T3., Conclusions: Dedicated methods can be used to analyze toxicities from all cycles of treatment. They do not delay accrual and should be integrated in the analysis and reporting of phase I dose-finding trials., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

At the end of the dose escalation step of phase I trials in oncology, it is increasingly frequent to include patients in expansion cohorts. However, the objective of the expansion cohorts, the number of patients included and their justification are insufficiently explained in the protocols. These cohorts are sometimes of considerable size. The aim of this article is to outline the methodology of expansion cohorts in order to provide recommendations for their planning in practice. This work has been undertaken in collaboration with the statisticians of the early phase investigation centers (CLIP(2)), supported by INCA. First, we have outlined the recent articles published on the expansion cohorts in phase I. We then proposed recommendations, in terms of objectives and number of patients to be included, to guide investigators and facilitate the use of these expansion cohorts in practice. Manji et al. have identified 149 phase I clinical trials using expansion cohorts in oncology with a review of the literature between 2006 and 2011 (Manji et al., 2013). Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 111 trials (74%). In these trials, safety was the most reported objective (80% of trials), followed by efficacy (45%). According to this review, the number of patients included in these cohorts was insufficiently justified. This result was confirmed by the study of literature that we conducted over the period 2011-2014. We propose to define the number of patients to be included in expansion cohorts in terms of (1) their objectives, (2) the statistical criteria and (3) the clinical context of the trial. The toxicity study remains the primary objective to evaluate in the expansion phase. In some contexts, the activity study is considered as co-primary objective, either for identifying preliminary signs of activity in studies like screening, or for studying the activity when the target population is known. This study is then considered as phase I/II, and experience plans of phase II can be adapted for planning expansion cohorts. Recommendations for the size of expansion cohorts are proposed. Despite the exploratory character of the expansion cohort, a justification of their size based on assumptions statistically defined is recommended in order to provide an interpretable conclusion and to quantify the risk of errors., (Copyright © 2014 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

It is widely accepted that more needs to be done to bring new, safe, and efficacious drugs to the market. Cardiovascular toxicity detected both in early drug discovery as well as in the clinic, is a major contributor to the high failure rate of new molecules. The growth of translational safety offers a promising approach to improve the probability of success for new molecules. Here we describe a cross-company initiative to determine the concordance between the conscious telemetered dog and phase I outcome for 3 cardiovascular parameters. The data indicate that, in the context of the methods applied in this analysis, the ability to detect compounds that affect the corrected QT interval (QTc) was good within the 10-30x exposure range but the predictive or detective value for heart rate and diastolic blood pressure was poor. These findings may highlight opportunities to refine both the animal and the clinical study designs, as well as refocusing the assessment of value of dog cardiovascular assessments beyond phase 1. This investigation has also highlighted key considerations for cross-company data sharing and presents a unique learning opportunity to improve future translational projects., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.)

Background: In order to improve the survival of children with cancer, novel therapies must be identified. Promising agents are tested in phase 1 trials in order to identify appropriate dosing and describe toxicity in children. The identification and referral of candidate patients for phase 1 trials rely heavily on medical providers who must balance their own perceptions of phase 1 trials with the desires and willingness of the patient and his/her family., Objective: The goal of the present study was to evaluate and compare physician and nurse perceptions regarding the beliefs, expectations, and perceived benefits of phase 1 clinical trials., Methods: A survey consisting of 21 questions was sent to 419 physicians and nurses practicing pediatric oncology at 30 different institutions. With the exception of 10 demographic questions, items were either rank ordered or rated on 5-point Likert scales., Results: Ninety-four physicians and 122 nurses completed the online survey. Physicians and nurses differed in their knowledge of the goals and medical effects of phase 1 clinical trials., Conclusions: Physicians and nurses hold positive beliefs regarding phase 1 clinical trials and support their role in the treatment of children with cancer. Education is necessary to increase nurses' knowledge of the goals and outcomes., Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that continued education of nurses as well as physicians about the goals, execution, and monitoring of phase 1 therapy would be worthwhile.

Aim: Recent publications indicate a strong interest in applying Bayesian adaptive designs in first time in humans (FTIH) studies outside of oncology. The objective of the present work was to assess the performance of a new approach that includes Bayesian adaptive design in single ascending dose (SAD) trials conducted in healthy volunteers, in comparison with a more traditional approach., Methods: A trial simulation approach was used and seven different scenarios of dose-response were tested., Results: The new approach provided less biased estimates of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In all scenarios, the number of subjects needed to define a MTD was lower with the new approach than with the traditional approach. With respect to duration of the trials, the two approaches were comparable. In all scenarios, the number of subjects exposed to a dose greater than the actual MTD was lower with the new approach than with the traditional approach., Conclusions: The new approach with Bayesian adaptive design shows a very good performance in the estimation of MTD and in reducing the total number of healthy subjects. It also reduces the number of subjects exposed to doses greater than the actual MTD., (© 2014 The British Pharmacological Society.)