Search

ImportanceClinical trial sponsors rely on eligibility criteria to control the characteristics of patients in their studies, promote the safety of participants, and optimize the interpretation of results. However, in recent years, complex and often overly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria have created substantial barriers to patient access to novel therapies, hindered trial recruitment and completion, and limited generalizability of trial results. A LUNGevity Foundation working group developed a framework for lung cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria. The goals of this framework are to (1) simplify eligibility criteria, (2) facilitate stakeholders’ (patients, clinicians, and sponsors) search for appropriate trials, and (3) harmonize trial populations to support intertrial comparisons of treatment effects.ObservationsClinicians and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the National Cancer Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency, and the LUNGevity Foundation undertook a process to identify and prioritize key items for inclusion in trial eligibility criteria. The group generated a prioritized library of terms to guide investigators and sponsors in the design of first-line, advanced non–small cell lung cancer clinical trials intended to support marketing application. These recommendations address disease stage and histologic features, enrollment biomarkers, performance status, organ function, brain metastases, and comorbidities. This effort forms the basis for a forthcoming FDA draft guidance for industry.Conclusions and RelevanceAs an initial step, the recommended cross-trial standardization of eligibility criteria may harmonize trial populations. Going forward, by connecting diverse stakeholders and providing formal opportunity for public input, the emerging FDA draft guidance may also provide an opportunity to revise and simplify long-standing approaches to trial eligibility. This work serves as a prototype for similar efforts now underway for other cancers.

Imaging response assessment is a cornerstone of patient care and drug development in oncology. Clinicians/clinical researchers rely on tumor imaging to estimate the impact of new treatments and guide decision making for patients and candidate therapies. This is important in brain cancer, where associations between tumor size/growth and emerging neurological deficits are strong. Accurately measuring the impact of a new therapy on tumor growth early in clinical development, where patient numbers are small, would be valuable for decision making regarding late-stage development activation. Current attempts to measure the impact of a new therapy have limited influence on clinical development, as determination of progression, stability or response does not currently account for individual tumor growth kinetics prior to the initiation of experimental therapies. Therefore, we posit that imaging-based response assessment, often used as a tool for estimating clinical effect, is incomplete as it does not adequately account for growth trajectories or biological characteristics of tumors prior to the introduction of an investigational agent. Here, we propose modifications to the existing framework for evaluating imaging assessment in primary brain tumors that will provide a more reliable understanding of treatment effects. Measuring tumor growth trajectories prior to a given intervention may allow us to more confidently conclude whether there is an anti-tumor effect. This updated approach to imaging-based tumor response assessment is intended to improve our ability to select candidate therapies for later-stage development, including those that may not meet currently sought thresholds for “response” and ultimately lead to identification of effective treatments.

Low rates of adult patient participation have been a persistent problem in cancer clinical trials and have continued to be a barrier to efficient drug development. The routine use of significant exclusion criteria has contributed to this problem by limiting participation in studies and creating significant clinical differences between the study cohorts and the real-world cancer patient populations. These routine exclusions also unnecessarily restrict opportunities for many patients to access potentially promising new therapies during clinical development. Multiple efforts are underway to broaden eligibility criteria, allowing more patients to enroll in studies and generating more robust data regarding the effect of novel therapies in the population at large. Focusing specifically on lung cancer as an example, a multistakeholder working group empaneled by the LUNGevity Foundation identified 14 restrictive and potentially outdated exclusion criteria that appear frequently in lung cancer clinical trials. As a part of the project, the group evaluated data from multiple recent lung cancer studies to ascertain the extent to which these 14 criteria appeared in study protocols and played a role in excluding patients (screen failures). The present report describes the working group's efforts to limit the use of these routine exclusions and presents clinical justifications for reducing the use of 14 criteria as routine exclusions in lung cancer studies, potentially expanding trial eligibility and improving the generalizability of the results from lung cancer trials.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

Objective: To identify the elements necessary for successful collaboration between patient groups and academic and industry sponsors of clinical trials, in order to develop recommendations for best practices for effective patient group engagement. Methods: In-depth interviews, informed by a previously reported survey, were conducted to identify the fundamentals of successful patient group engagement. Thirty-two respondents from 3 sectors participated: patient groups, academic researchers, and industry. The findings were presented to a multistakeholder group of experts in January 2015. The expert group came to consensus on a set of actionable recommendations for best practices for patient groups and research sponsors. Results: Interview respondents acknowledged that not all patient groups are created equal in terms of what they can contribute to a clinical trial. The most important elements for effective patient group engagement include establishing meaningful partnerships, demonstrating mutual benefits, and collaborating as partners from the planning stage forward. Although there is a growing appreciation by sponsors about the benefits of patient group engagement, there remains some resistance and some uncertainty about how best to engage. Barriers include mismatched expectations and a perception that patient groups lack scientific sophistication and that “wishful thinking” may cloud their recommendations. Conclusions: Patient groups are developing diverse skillsets and acquiring assets to leverage in order to become collaborators with industry and academia on clinical trials. Growing numbers of research sponsors across the clinical trials enterprise are recognizing the benefits of continuous and meaningful patient group engagement, but there are still mindsets to change, and stakeholders need further guidance on operationalizing a new model of clinical trial conduct.

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of “What makes I-O transformative?” Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a “data needs catalogue” (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

The advent of patient-focused drug development (PFDD) has underscored the priority of engaging the "voice of the patient" in therapy development. Industry sponsors are working to enhance engagement of patients early, particularly within decision making for design and execution of clinical trials. This trend is especially significant within oncology, as industry leaders partner with patient advocacy organizations, individual patients, and clinicians to enhance patient-centricity. These partnerships often require a willingness to change attitudes, approaches, and processes to reshape traditional models of drug development. In 2016, Bayer Oncology launched a pilot program called the Patient Advocate Advisory Council (PAAC), to design and execute a program whereby patients join clinical development teams. The PAAC, composed of experienced patient advocates from the US and Europe, worked closely with company leaders to design and execute a pilot in an ongoing clinical development program. The PAAC and Bayer teams have identified important learnings from the first phase of the program, emphasizing earlier engagement of patient advisors, launching the enhanced training platform, and recruiting additional PAAC members to expand the initiative's reach across the cancer community. A critical success factor is having champions for patient engagement within the company to ensure that activities are streamlined and standardized as patient engagement becomes more common. This is particularly important given that patient engagement should be a long-term investment with sufficient and sustained resources. PAAC members and Bayer have committed to sharing learnings, to advance opportunities for successful patient engagement in drug development throughout the oncology therapeutic landscape.

Objective Patient-centered clinical trial design and execution is becoming increasingly important. No best practice guidelines exist despite a key stakeholder declaration to create more effective engagement models. This study aims to gain a better understanding of attitudes and practices for engaging patient groups so that actionable recommendations may be developed. Methods Individuals from industry, academic institutions, and patient groups were identified through Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and Drug Information Association rosters and mailing lists. Objectives, practices, and perceived barriers related to engaging patient groups in the planning, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials were reported in an online survey. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of survey data followed a literature review to inform survey questions. Results Survey respondents (n = 179) valued the importance of involving patient groups in research; however, patient group respondents valued their contributions to research protocol development, funding acquisition, and interpretation of study results more highly than those contributions were valued by industry and academic respondents (all p < .001). Patient group respondents placed higher value in open communications, clear expectations, and detailed contract execution than did non–patient group respondents (all p < .05). Industry and academic respondents more often cited internal bureaucratic processes and reluctance to share information as engagement barriers than did patient group respondents (all p < .01). Patient groups reported that a lack of transparency and understanding of the benefits of collaboration on the part of industry and academia were greater barriers than did non–patient group respondents (all p< .01). Conclusions Despite reported similarities among approaches to engagement by the three stakeholder groups, key differences exist in perceived barriers and benefits to partnering with patient groups among the sectors studied. This recognition could inform the development of best practices for patient-centered clinical trial design and execution. Additional research is needed to define and optimize key success factors.

In July 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act was incorporated into a Title of FDASIA to expedite clinical development of new, potential “breakthrough” drugs or treatments that show dramatic responses in early-phase studies. Using this regulatory pathway, once a promising new drug candidate is designated as a “Breakthrough Therapy”, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsor would collaborate to determine the best path forward to abbreviate the traditional three-phase approach to drug development. The breakthrough legislation requires that an FDA guidance be drafted that details specific requirements of the bill to aid FDA in implementing requirements of the Act. In this article, we have proposed criteria to define a product as a Breakthrough Therapy, and discussed critical components of the development process that would require flexibility in order to enable expedited development of a Breakthrough Therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4297–304. ©2013 AACR.