Professor Christina Yap
Group Leader: ICR-CTSU Early Phase and Adaptive Trials, Genetics and Epidemiology
OrcID: 0000-0002-6715-2514
Phone: 02087224022
Email: [email protected]
Also on: @ChristinaBYap
Location: Sutton
OrcID: 0000-0002-6715-2514
Phone: 02087224022
Email: [email protected]
Also on: @ChristinaBYap
Location: SuttonBiography
Christina Yap is Professor in Clinical Trials Biostatistics at The Institute of Cancer Research, Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU). Christina is a chartered statistician with over 20 years’ experience and has expertise in both trials methodology and the conduct of clinical trials. She is motivated by a desire to ensure that trials are utilised to their best potential to influence clinical practice. Her research focuses on developing and translating innovative methodologies into real-world practice, enabling more effective trial delivery for the ultimate benefit to patients.
Christina completed a MSc in Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Glasgow and was awarded the William M. Mercer Ltd. Prize for Most Outstanding Statistics Graduate, following which she undertook a PhD in Statistics. Prior to joining the Institute of Cancer Research in 2019, Christina led the early phase cancer trials portfolio (which comprised of over 25 trials in solid tumours and haematological diseases and non-cancer trials), and late phase trial portfolios in head and neck cancer and skin cancer at the Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham.
Within the ICR’s Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, Christina leads the Early Phase and Adaptive Trials group. She works in close partnership with the ICR/RMH Drug Development Unit and external organisations (including the CRUK Centre for Drug Development, Imperial College and Kings College London) to design innovative adaptive designs in early phase trials. She is co-principal investigator/co-applicant of over 20 trials (past and present), where she has led the design and practical implementation of innovative, efficient designs, ranging from early phase I/II to multi-arm multi-stage randomised Phase II/III designs, including basket, umbrella and platform designs and the application of Bayesian approaches to such settings, successfully translating novel designs into practice. Her specialist methodology interest is in adaptive designs, stratified medicine and platform trials, including basket, umbrella designs, where she has published widely. She is currently leading an international consensus-driven development of the SPIRT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials, and has a keen interest in the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase trials.
Christina is an investigator within the MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, co-leads its Stratified Medicine Working Group, leads its Rare Disease Subgroup, and is a core committee member of the Statistical Analysis Working Group and a member of the Adaptive Designs Working Group. She is also part of the Leadership team of the newly established MRC TMRP Doctoral Training Fellowship. She is an NIHR Statistics Group Steering Committee member and co-leads its Early Phase Clinical Trials Group, as well as an MHRA Biologicals & Vaccines Expert Advisory Group member and sits on funding panel for the Cancer Research UK Clinical Research Committee. She is an associate editor for the Trials journal, as well as a scientific committee member for ESMO TAT 2020, 2021 and 2023 and part of the ESMO-TAT Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies Taskforce. She has delivered several invited talks at international conferences and symposia, organised training courses for statisticians, clinicians and trialists (for academia and industry), and sits on national and international data monitoring committees.
Outside of work, Christina enjoys walking, craft and listening to music.
Chartered Statistician, Royal Statistical Society, UK.
Ph.D. in Statistics, Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow.
Postgraduate module in Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education, Teaching and Learning Service, University of Glasgow.
Master in Science (Mathematics and Statistics) First Class Honours, University of Glasgow.
Council of Vice Chancellors and Principals Overseas Research Scholarship, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, U.K., 1999.
University of Glasgow Postgraduate Scholarship, University of Glasgow, 1999.
Most Outstanding Statistics Graduate at University of Glasgow, William M. Mercer Ltd, 1999.
Editorial Boards
Associate Editor for Trials, 2020.
NCRI Head & Neck Study Group, Appointed Member, National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), 2016-present.
NCRI Skin Cancer Study Group, Appointed Member, National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), 2017-present.
TMRP Stratified Medicine Working Group, Joint Lead, MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, 2019-present.
TMRP Adaptive Design Working Group, Member, MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership (TMRP), 2013-present.
NIHR Early Phase Clinical Trials, Co-Chair (from 2019), Committee Member (2015-2019), NIHR Statistics Group, 2015-present.
RDS West Midlands, Statistical Advisor, RDS West Midlands, 2015-2019.
Cancer Research UK Clinical Expert Review Panel (CERP), Co-opted funding panel member, Cancer Research UK Clinical Expert Review Panel (CERP), 2018-2019.
MRC Experimental Medicine Panel, Full funding panel member (from 2021); Interim member (2020), Medical Research Council (MRC) Experimental Medicine, 2020-present.
Rare Disease subgroup (TMRP Stratified Medicine Working Group), Lead, MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership (TMRP), Jan 2020-present.
ESMO Targeted Anticancer Therapies Congress, Congress Scientific Committee member, ESMO, 2020-2021.
Athena SWAN, Steering Group member (Co-chair from 2021), ICR, 2020-present.
TMRP Statistical Analysis Working Group, Core Committee member, MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, 2019-present.
Cancer Research UK Clinical Research Committee, Funding panel member, Cancer Research UK, 2018-present.
Scientific Evaluation Committee, Member on "early phase clinical trials of innovative drugs", French National Cancer Institute (INCa), 2021-present.
Related pages
Types of Publications
Journal articles
IMPORTANCE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. OBJECTIVE: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. FINDINGS: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.
This paper reports guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans for early phase clinical trials, ensuring specification of the minimum reporting analysis requirements, by detailing extensions (11 new items) and modifications (25 items) to existing guidance after a review by various stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia are poor. Long-term survival depends on reaching a second chronic phase, followed by allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We investigated whether the novel combination of the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor ponatinib with fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) could improve response and optimise allogeneic HSCT outcomes in patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. The aim was to identify a dose of ponatinib, which combined with FLAG-IDA, showed clinically meaningful activity and tolerability. METHODS: MATCHPOINT was a seamless, phase 1/2, multicentre trial done in eight UK Trials Acceleration Programme-funded centres. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥16 years) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive or BCR-ABL1-positive blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, suitable for intensive chemotherapy. Participants received up to two cycles of ponatinib with FLAG-IDA. Experimental doses of oral ponatinib (given from day 1 to day 28 of FLAG-IDA) were between 15 mg alternate days and 45 mg once daily and the starting dose was 30 mg once daily. Intravenous fludarabine (30 mg/m2 for 5 days), cytarabine (2 g/m2 for 5 days), and idarubicin (8 mg/m2 for 3 days), and subcutaneous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (if used), were delivered according to local protocols. We used an innovative EffTox design to investigate the activity and tolerability of ponatinib-FLAG-IDA; the primary endpoints were the optimal ponatinib dose meeting prespecified thresholds of activity (inducement of second chronic phase defined as either haematological or minor cytogenetic response) and tolerability (dose-limiting toxicties). Analyses were planned on an intention-to-treat basis. MATCHPOINT was registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, ISRCTN98986889, and has completed recruitment; the final results are presented. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 17 patients (12 men, five women) were recruited, 16 of whom were evaluable for the coprimary outcomes. Median follow-up was 41 months (IQR 36-48). The EffTox model simultaneously considered clinical responses and dose-limiting toxicities, and determined the optimal ponatinib dose as 30 mg daily, combined with FLAG-IDA. 11 (69%) of 16 patients were in the second chronic phase after one cycle of treatment. Four (25%) patients had a dose-limiting toxicity (comprising cardiomyopathy and grade 4 increased alanine aminotransferase, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, grade 3 increased amylase, and grade 4 increased alanine aminotransferase), fulfilling the criteria for clinically relevant activity and toxicity. 12 (71%) of 17 patients proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events were lung infection (n=4 [24%]), fever (n=3 [18%]), and hypocalcaemia (n=3 [18%]). There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 (65%) patients. Three (18%) patients died due to treatment-related events (due to cardiomyopathy, pulmonary haemorrhage, and bone marrow aplasia). INTERPRETATION: Ponatinib-FLAG-IDA can induce second chronic phase in patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, representing an active salvage therapy to bridge to allogeneic HSCT. The number of treatment-related deaths is not in excess of what would be expected in this very high-risk group of patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. The efficient EffTox method is a model for investigating novel therapies in ultra-orphan cancers. FUNDING: Blood Cancer UK and Incyte.
MOTIVATION: Platform designs - master protocols that allow for new treatment arms to be added over time - have gained considerable attention in recent years. Between 2001 and 2019, 16 platform trials were initiated globally. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have provided a new motivation for these designs. We conducted a rapid review to quantify and describe platform trials used in COVID-19. METHODS: We cross-referenced PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cytel COVID-19 Clinical Trials Tracker to identify platform trials, defined by their stated ability to add future arms. RESULTS: We identified 58 COVID-19 platform trials globally registered between January 2020 and May 2021. According to trial registries, 16 trials have added new therapies (median 3, IQR 4) and 11 have dropped arms (median 3, IQR 2.5). About 50% of trials publicly share their protocol, and 31 trials (53%) intend to share trial data. Forty-nine trials (84%) explicitly report adaptive features, and 21 trials (36%) state Bayesian methods. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, there has been a surge in the number of platform trials compared to historical use. While transparency in statistical methods and clarity of data sharing policies needs improvement, platform trials appear particularly well-suited for rapid evidence generation. Trials secured funding quickly and many succeeded in adding new therapies in a short time period, thus demonstrating the potential for these trial designs to be implemented beyond the pandemic. The evidence gathered here may provide ample insight to further inform operational, statistical, and regulatory aspects of future platform trial conduct.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug's tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT. METHODS: A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes. RESULTS: International survey: 112 responses from 15 September-30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use. METHODS: DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted. RESULTS: 5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected. CONCLUSIONS: PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.
BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs are a wide class of methods focused on improving the power, efficiency and participant benefit of clinical trials. They do this through allowing information gathered during the trial to be used to make changes in a statistically robust manner - the changes could include which treatment arms patients are enrolled to (e.g. dropping non-promising treatment arms), the allocation ratios, the target sample size or the enrolment criteria of the trial. Generally, we are enthusiastic about adaptive designs and advocate their use in many clinical situations. However, they are not always advantageous. In some situations, they provide little efficiency advantage or are even detrimental to the quality of information provided by the trial. In our experience, factors that reduce the efficiency of adaptive designs are routinely downplayed or ignored in methodological papers, which may lead researchers into believing they are more beneficial than they actually are. MAIN TEXT: In this paper, we discuss situations where adaptive designs may not be as useful, including situations when the outcomes take a long time to observe, when dropping arms early may cause issues and when increased practical complexity eliminates theoretical efficiency gains. CONCLUSION: Adaptive designs often provide notable efficiency benefits. However, it is important for investigators to be aware that they do not always provide an advantage. There should always be careful consideration of the potential benefits and disadvantages of an adaptive design.
PURPOSE: Salvage options for patients who relapse after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplasia (MDS) remain limited, and novel treatment strategies are required. Both lenalidomide (LEN) and azacitidine (AZA) possess significant antitumor activity effect in AML. Administration of LEN post-transplantation is associated with excessive rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but AZA has been shown to ameliorate GVHD in murine transplantation models. We therefore examined the tolerability and activity of combined LEN/AZA administration in post-transplantation relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients who had relapsed after allo-SCT for AML (n = 24) or MDS (n = 5) were treated with sequential AZA (75 mg/m2 for 7 days) followed by escalating doses of LEN on days 10 to 30. Dose allocation and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) estimation were guided by a modified Bayesian continuous reassessment method (CRM). RESULTS: Sequential AZA and LEN therapy was well tolerated. The MTD of post-transplantation LEN, in combination with AZA, was determined as 25 mg daily. Three patients developed grade 2 to 4 GVHD. There was no GVHD-related mortality. Seven of 15 (47%) patients achieved a major clinical response after LEN/AZA therapy. CD8+ T cells demonstrated impaired interferon-γ/tumor necrosis factor-α production at relapse, which was not reversed during LEN/AZA administration. CONCLUSION: We conclude LEN can be administered safely post-allograft in conjunction with AZA, and this combination demonstrates clinical activity in relapsed AML/MDS without reversing biologic features of T-cell exhaustion. The use of a CRM model delivered improved efficiency in MTD assessment and provided additional flexibility. Combined LEN/AZA therapy represents a novel and active salvage therapy in patients who had relapsed post-allograft.
The ever-increasing pace of development of novel therapies mandates efficient methodologies for assessment of their tolerability and activity. Evidence increasingly support the merits of model-based dose-finding designs in identifying the recommended phase II dose compared with conventional rule-based designs such as the 3 + 3 but despite this, their use remains limited. Here, we propose a useful tool, dose transition pathways (DTP), which helps overcome several commonly faced practical and methodologic challenges in the implementation of model-based designs. DTP projects in advance the doses recommended by a model-based design for subsequent patients (stay, escalate, de-escalate, or stop early), using all the accumulated information. After specifying a model with favorable statistical properties, we utilize the DTP to fine-tune the model to tailor it to the trial's specific requirements that reflect important clinical judgments. In particular, it can help to determine how stringent the stopping rules should be if the investigated therapy is too toxic. Its use to design and implement a modified continual reassessment method is illustrated in an acute myeloid leukemia trial. DTP removes the fears of model-based designs as unknown, complex systems and can serve as a handbook, guiding decision-making for each dose update. In the illustrated trial, the seamless, clear transition for each dose recommendation aided the investigators' understanding of the design and facilitated decision-making to enable finer calibration of a tailored model. We advocate the use of the DTP as an integral procedure in the co-development and successful implementation of practical model-based designs by statisticians and investigators. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7440-7. ©2017 AACR.
Types of Publications
Journal articles
<h4>Background</h4>Air pollution-mortality risk estimates are generally larger at longer-term, compared with short-term, exposure time scales.<h4>Objective</h4>We compared associations between short-term exposure to black smoke (BS) and mortality with long-term exposure-mortality associations in cohort participants and with short-term exposure-mortality associations in the general population from which the cohorts were selected.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed short-to-medium-term exposure-mortality associations in the Renfrew-Paisley and Collaborative cohorts (using nested case-control data sets), and compared them with long-term exposure-mortality associations (using a multilevel spatiotemporal exposure model and survival analyses) and short-to-medium-term exposure-mortality associations in the general population (using time-series analyses).<h4>Results</h4>For the Renfrew-Paisley cohort (15,331 participants), BS exposure-mortality associations were observed in nested case-control analyses that accounted for spatial variations in pollution exposure and individual-level risk factors. These cohort-based associations were consistently greater than associations estimated in time-series analyses using a single monitoring site to represent general population exposure {e.g., 1.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1, 3.4%] vs. 0.2% (95% CI: 0.0, 0.4%) increases in mortality associated with 10-μg/m³ increases in 3-day lag BS, respectively}. Exposure-mortality associations were of larger magnitude for longer exposure periods [e.g., 3.4% (95% CI: -0.7, 7.7%) and 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5%) increases in all-cause mortality associated with 10-μg/m³ increases in 31-day BS in case-control and time-series analyses, respectively; and 10% (95% CI: 4, 17%) increase in all-cause mortality associated with a 10-μg/m³ increase in geometic mean BS for 1970-1979, in survival analysis].<h4>Conclusions</h4>After adjusting for individual-level exposure and potential confounders, short-term exposure-mortality associations in cohort participants were of greater magnitude than in comparable general population time-series study analyses. However, short-term exposure-mortality associations were substantially lower than equivalent long-term associations, which is consistent with the possibility of larger, more persistent cumulative effects from long-term exposures.
<h4>Aims</h4>Failure to carry out intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) in cervical carcinoma results in suboptimal chemoradiation and increases the risk of recurrence. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of adjuvant hysterectomy after unsuccessful ICBT.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A retrospective analysis was carried out of all women referred with cervical carcinoma between January 1999 and July 2007 where ICBT insertion was unsuccessful after the initial chemoradiation. The data collected and analysed included histology, stage of disease, causes for unsuccessful ICBT insertion, the response to the initial chemoradiation, subsequent treatment, morbidity, recurrence rates and survival rates. Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank methods were used to analyse recurrence-free and overall survival rates.<h4>Results</h4>ICBT insertion was unsuccessful in 19 of 208 (9%) patients. The causes of failure were: inability to dilate the cervix; uterine perforation; vesicovaginal fistula; patient refusal; other problems, including the presence of pyometrium, patient not fit for general anaesthetic, and narrow vagina; and consultant choice with no obvious reason. Fourteen of 19 patients (74%) received further pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone; five (26%) patients underwent adjuvant hysterectomy. The median follow-up for all patients was 63 months; 60 months for patients treated with adjuvant hysterectomy (range 31-68 months) and 85 months for patients treated with further EBRT. None of the patients treated with adjuvant hysterectomy developed any significant late toxicity. Seven patients (50%) treated with EBRT have relapsed compared with none in the adjuvant hysterectomy arm (P=0.068). Six patients (43%) in the EBRT arm have subsequently died of recurrent disease compared with none in the adjuvant hysterectomy arm (P=0.152).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Adjuvant hysterectomy after unsuccessful ICBT does not seem to increase late toxicity and reduces the risk of pelvic recurrence and may improve survival. The role of adjuvant hysterectomy after suboptimal chemoradiation merits further investigation in clinical trials.
The measurement of the Epstein-Barr viral load in peripheral blood has been recognised as an important way of monitoring the response to treatment in patients with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-related malignancies. In particular, EBV load in transplant recipients can be used as a predictive parameter for Post-transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder (PTLD). The aim was to develop a rapid and reliable PCR protocol for the quantification of the cell-associated EBV genome. Real-time PCR using TaqMan methodology was established. This technique was applied to determine the EBV load in various study groups including healthy controls, transplant recipients, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with infectious mononucleosis. The baseline level of EBV genomes in the immunosuppressed renal transplant recipients was significantly different from that in the healthy controls.
Brain injured patients may exhibit altered gastric emptying; thus, some believe post-pyloric feeding to be tolerated better than gastric feeding. Reliable post-pylorus access can be difficult to obtain, so gastric feeding remains the preferred route for administering nutrition. Feeding intolerance may be associated with increased complications and costs. We sought to compare bolus (B) versus continuous (C) gastric feeding in brain injured patients. This retrospective cohort study was carried out at a neurological/neurosurgical intensive care unit at a Level 1 trauma and tertiary referral center. Our subjects were 152 consecutive patients over two years. Use of B or C feedings was based on clinicians' preferences. Abdominal examination and gastric residuals (> 75 mL over four hours) defined feeding intolerance (FI). Putative risks for FI were compared between the groups. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups B (n = 86) and C (n = 66). Feeding intolerance occurred more often in group B than in group C (60.5% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.009). Group C patients achieved 75% of nutritional goals faster than group B patients (median 3.3 vs. 4.6 days; p = 0.03). Prokinetic agent use was similar between the groups and did not reduce the time to achieve nutritional goals. There was a trend towards a reduction in the incidence of infections in group C (p = 0.05). Independent predictors of FI included: sucralfate (OR 2.3), propofol (OR 2.1), pentobarbital (OR 3.9) or paralytic (OR 3) use; older age (OR 5); days receiving mechanical ventilation (OR 1.2); and admission diagnosis of either intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 2.2) or ischemic stroke (OR 1.9). Continuous gastric feeding is better tolerated than B feedings in patients with acute brain injuries. Use of prokinetic agents did not affect time to achievement of nutritional goals. Use of common medications including sucralfate and propofol were associated with FI.
<h4>Aims</h4>Supraclavicular fossa (SCF) radiotherapy plays an important part in the adjuvant management of breast cancer but data on acute radiotherapy toxicity are lacking, particularly when differing patient treatment positions are used to allow computed tomography planning or to reduce cardiac doses.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We evaluated SCF and breast/chest wall acute skin toxicity in a cohort of 92 women with breast cancer, who were planned in a 'T'-grip (n = 72) or 90 degrees-grip (n = 20) position, while 'on treatment' and at 6 weeks. The modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria were used to score toxicity. Data on age, body mass index, smoking history, type of breast operation, prior chemotherapy, radiation dose, number of fields and field size were recorded and correlated with outcome.<h4>Results</h4>Maximum SCF reaction score was RTOG 2a, with no moist desquamation observed. SCF reactions were less severe compared with chest wall reactions and no worse than breast reactions. There was significant resolution of toxicity at 6 weeks. SCF radiotherapy in 'T'-grip patients was well tolerated and no worse than the 90 degees-grip group. Pain scores and sore throat occurrences were minimal. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that smoking was associated with worsening SCF toxicity (odds ratio [OR] 2.92; P = 0.045) and delayed healing. Incremental SCF dose worsened toxicity (OR 3.65; P = 0.023). Smoking worsened breast but not chest wall toxicity.<h4>Conclusions</h4>SCF radiotherapy was at least as well tolerated as breast radiotherapy and better tolerated than chest wall radiotherapy. The 'T'-grip position did not affect toxicity negatively. Smoking and radiation dose affected SCF toxicity.
<h4>Purpose</h4>The relationship between volume of irradiated small bowel (VSB) and acute toxicity in rectal cancer radiotherapy is poorly quantified, particularly in patients receiving concurrent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Using treatment planning data, we studied a series of such patients.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Details of 41 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were reviewed. All received 45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, 3-4 fields three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with daily 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid during Weeks 1 and 5. Toxicity was assessed prospectively in a weekly clinic. Using computed tomography planning software, the VSB was determined at 5 Gy dose intervals (V5, V10, etc.). Eight patients with maximal VSB had dosimetry and radiobiological modeling outcomes compared between inverse and conformal three-dimensional planning.<h4>Results</h4>VSB correlated strongly with diarrheal severity at every dose level (p<0.03), with strongest correlation at lowest doses. Median VSB differed significantly between patients experiencing Grade 0-1 and Grade 2-4 diarrhea (p<or=0.05). No correlation was found with anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, age, body mass index, sex, tumor position, or number of fields. Analysis of 8 patients showed that inverse planning reduced median dose to small bowel by 5.1 Gy (p=0.008) and calculated late normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) by 67% (p=0.016). We constructed a model using mathematical analysis to predict for acute diarrhea occurring at V5 and V15.<h4>Conclusions</h4>A strong dose-volume relationship exists between VSB and acute diarrhea at all dose levels during preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Our constructed model may be useful in predicting toxicity, and this has been derived without the confounding influence of surgical excision on bowel function. Inverse planning can reduce calculated dose to small bowel and late NTCP, and its clinical role warrants further investigation.
Increased use of high-risk allografts is critical to meet the demand for liver transplantation. We aimed to identify criteria predicting viability of organs, currently declined for clinical transplantation, using functional assessment during normothermic machine perfusion (NMP). Twelve discarded human livers were subjected to NMP following static cold storage. Livers were perfused with a packed red cell-based fluid at 37°C for 6 hours. Multilevel statistical models for repeated measures were employed to investigate the trend of perfusate blood gas profiles and vascular flow characteristics over time and the effect of lactate-clearing (LC) and non-lactate-clearing (non-LC) ability of the livers. The relationship of lactate clearance capability with bile production and histological and molecular findings were also examined. After 2 hours of perfusion, median lactate concentrations were 3.0 and 14.6 mmol/L in the LC and non-LC groups, respectively. LC livers produced more bile and maintained a stable perfusate pH and vascular flow >150 and 500 mL/minute through the hepatic artery and portal vein, respectively. Histology revealed discrepancies between subjectively discarded livers compared with objective findings. There were minimal morphological changes in the LC group, whereas non-LC livers often showed hepatocellular injury and reduced glycogen deposition. Adenosine triphosphate levels in the LC group increased compared with the non-LC livers. We propose composite viability criteria consisting of lactate clearance, pH maintenance, bile production, vascular flow patterns, and liver macroscopic appearance. These have been tested successfully in clinical transplantation. In conclusion, NMP allows an objective assessment of liver function that may reduce the risk and permit use of currently unused high-risk livers.
Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (<i>P</i> = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in <i>CALR-</i>positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.
<h4>Background</h4>As there are limited patients for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia trials, it is important that statistical methodologies in Phase II efficiently select regimens for subsequent evaluation in larger-scale Phase III trials.<h4>Methods</h4>We propose the screened selection design (SSD), which is a practical multi-stage, randomised Phase II design for two experimental arms. Activity is first evaluated by applying Simon's two-stage design (1989) on each arm. If both are active, the play-the-winner selection strategy proposed by Simon, Wittes and Ellenberg (SWE) (1985) is applied to select the superior arm. A variant of the design, Modified SSD, also allows the arm with the higher response rates to be recommended only if its activity rate is greater by a clinically-relevant value. The operating characteristics are explored via a simulation study and compared to a Bayesian Selection approach.<h4>Results</h4>Simulations showed that with the proposed SSD, it is possible to retain the sample size as required in SWE and obtain similar probabilities of selecting the correct superior arm of at least 90%; with the additional attractive benefit of reducing the probability of selecting ineffective arms. This approach is comparable to a Bayesian Selection Strategy. The Modified SSD performs substantially better than the other designs in selecting neither arm if the underlying rates for both arms are desirable but equivalent, allowing for other factors to be considered in the decision making process. Though its probability of correctly selecting a superior arm might be reduced, it still performs reasonably well. It also reduces the probability of selecting an inferior arm.<h4>Conclusions</h4>SSD provides an easy to implement randomised Phase II design that selects the most promising treatment that has shown sufficient evidence of activity, with available R codes to evaluate its operating characteristics.
<h4>Introduction</h4>The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce.<h4>Methods</h4>To help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM.<h4>Results</h4>An initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.
Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.
<h4>Introduction</h4>The use of marginal or extended criteria donor livers is increasing. These organs carry a greater risk of initial dysfunction and early failure, as well as inferior long-term outcomes. As such, many are rejected due to a perceived risk of use and use varies widely between centres. Ex situ normothermic machine perfusion of the liver (NMP-L) may enable the safe transplantation of organs that meet defined objective criteria denoting their high-risk status and are currently being declined for use by all the UK transplant centres.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Viability testing and transplantation of marginal livers is an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, single-arm trial designed to determine whether currently unused donor livers can be salvaged and safely transplanted with equivalent outcomes in terms of patient survival. The procured rejected livers must meet predefined criteria that objectively denote their marginal condition. The liver is subjected to NMP-L following a period of static cold storage. Organs metabolising lactate to ≤2.5 mmol/L within 4 hours of the perfusion commencing in combination with two or more of the following parameters-bile production, metabolism of glucose, a hepatic arterial flow rate ≥150 mL/min and a portal venous flow rate ≥500 mL/min, a pH ≥7.30 and/or maintain a homogeneous perfusion-will be considered viable and transplanted into a suitable consented recipient. The coprimary outcome measures are the success rate of NMP-L to produce a transplantable organ and 90-day patient post-transplant survival.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>The protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (London-Dulwich Research Ethics Committee, 16/LO/1056), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and is endorsed by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research, Innovation and Novel Technologies Advisory Group. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications.<h4>Trial registration number</h4>NCT02740608; Pre-results.
<h4>Background</h4>Dose-finding trials are essential to drug development as they establish recommended doses for later-phase testing. We aim to motivate wider use of model-based designs for dose finding, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM).<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a literature review of dose-finding designs and conducted a survey to identify perceived barriers to their implementation.<h4>Results</h4>We describe the benefits of model-based designs (flexibility, superior operating characteristics, extended scope), their current uptake, and existing resources. The most prominent barriers to implementation of a model-based design were lack of suitable training, chief investigators' preference for algorithm-based designs (e.g., 3+3), and limited resources for study design before funding. We use a real-world example to illustrate how these barriers can be overcome.<h4>Conclusions</h4>There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of CRM. Many leading pharmaceutical companies routinely implement model-based designs. Our analysis identified barriers for academic statisticians and clinical academics in mirroring the progress industry has made in trial design. Unified support from funders, regulators, and journal editors could result in more accurate doses for later-phase testing, and increase the efficiency and success of clinical drug development. We give recommendations for increasing the uptake of model-based designs for dose-finding trials in academia.
<h4>Background</h4>The Matchpoint trial aims to identify the optimal dose of ponatinib to give with conventional chemotherapy consisting of fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin to chronic myeloid leukaemia patients in blastic transformation phase. The dose should be both tolerable and efficacious. This paper describes our experience implementing EffTox in the Matchpoint trial.<h4>Methods</h4>EffTox is a Bayesian adaptive dose-finding trial design that jointly scrutinises binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We describe a nomenclature for succinctly describing outcomes in phase I/II dose-finding trials. We use dose-transition pathways, where doses are calculated for each feasible set of outcomes in future cohorts. We introduce the phenomenon of dose ambivalence, where EffTox can recommend different doses after observing the same outcomes. We also describe our experiences with outcome ambiguity, where the categorical evaluation of some primary outcomes is temporarily delayed.<h4>Results</h4>We arrived at an EffTox parameterisation that is simulated to perform well over a range of scenarios. In scenarios where dose ambivalence manifested, we were guided by the dose-transition pathways. This technique facilitates planning, and also helped us overcome short-term outcome ambiguity.<h4>Conclusions</h4>EffTox is an efficient and powerful design, but not without its challenges. Joint phase I/II clinical trial designs will likely become increasingly important in coming years as we further investigate non-cytotoxic treatments and streamline the drug approval process. We hope this account of the problems we faced and the solutions we used will help others implement this dose-finding clinical trial design.<h4>Trial registration</h4>Matchpoint was added to the European Clinical Trials Database ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-005629-65/GB ) on 2013-12-30.
Disease relapse is the major causes of treatment failure after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). As well as demonstrating significant clinical activity in AML, azacitidine (AZA) upregulates putative tumor antigens, inducing a CD8(+) T cell response with the potential to augment a graft-versus-leukemia effect. We, therefore, studied the feasibility and clinical sequelae of the administration of AZA during the first year after transplantation in 51 patients with AML undergoing allogeneic SCT. Fourteen patients did not commence AZA either because of transplantation complications or withdrawal of consent. Thirty-seven patients commenced AZA at a median of 54 days (range, 40 to 194 days) after transplantation, which was well tolerated in the majority of patients. Thirty-one patients completed 3 or more cycles of AZA. Sixteen patients relapsed at a median time of 8 months after transplantation. No patient developed extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease. The induction of a post-transplantation CD8(+) T cell response to 1 or more tumor-specific peptides was studied in 28 patients. Induction of a CD8(+) T cell response was associated with a reduced risk of disease relapse (hazard ratio [HR], .30; 95% confidence interval [CI], .10 to .85; P = .02) and improved relapse-free survival (HR, .29; 95% CI, .10 to .83; P = .02) taking into account death as a competing risk. In conclusion, AZA is well tolerated after transplantation and appears to have the capacity to reduce the relapse risk in patients who demonstrate a CD8(+) T cell response to tumor antigens. These observations require confirmation in a prospective clinical trial.
<h4>Background</h4>Results of small-scale studies have suggested that stem-cell therapy is safe and effective in patients with liver cirrhosis, but no adequately powered randomised controlled trials have been done. We assessed the safety and efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and haemopoietic stem-cell infusions in patients with liver cirrhosis.<h4>Methods</h4>This multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial was done in three UK hospitals and recruited patients with compensated liver cirrhosis and MELD scores of 11·0-15·5. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive standard care (control), treatment with subcutaneous G-CSF (lenograstim) 15 μg/kg for 5 days, or treatment with G-CSF for 5 days followed by leukapheresis and intravenous infusion of three doses of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells (0·2 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells per kg per infusion). Randomisation was done by Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit staff with a minimisation algorithm that stratified by trial site and cause of liver disease. The coprimary outcomes were improvement in severity of liver disease (change in MELD) at 3 months and the trend of change in MELD score over time. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who received at least one day of treatment. Safety was assessed on the basis of the treatment received. This trial was registered at Current Controlled Trials on Nov 18, 2009; ISRCTN, number 91288089; and the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2009-010335-41.<h4>Findings</h4>Between May 18, 2010, and Feb 26, 2015, 27 patients were randomly assigned to the standard care, 26 to the G-CSF group, and 28 to the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group. Median change in MELD from day 0 to 90 was -0·5 (IQR -1·5 to 1·1) in the standard care group, -0·5 (-1·7 to 0·5) in the G-CSF group, and -0·5 (-1·3 to 1·0) in the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group. We found no evidence of differences between the treatment groups and control group in the trends of MELD change over time (p=0·55 for the G-CSF group vs standard care and p=0·75 for the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group vs standard care). Serious adverse events were more frequent the in G-CSF and stem-cell infusion group (12 [43%] patients) than in the G-CSF (three [11%] patients) and standard care (three [12%] patients) groups. The most common serious adverse events were ascites (two patients in the G-CSF group and two patients in the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group, one of whom was admitted to hospital with ascites twice), sepsis (four patients in the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group), and encephalopathy (three patients in the G-CSF plus stem-cell infusion group, one of whom was admitted to hospital with encephalopathy twice). Three patients died, including one in the standard care group (variceal bleed) and two in the G-CSF and stem-cell infusion group (one myocardial infarction and one progressive liver disease).<h4>Interpretation</h4>G-CSF with or without haemopoietic stem-cell infusion did not improve liver dysfunction or fibrosis and might be associated with increased frequency of adverse events compared with standard care.<h4>Funding</h4>National Institute of Health Research, The Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust.
<h4>Background</h4>Previous work has established that health care staff, in particular emergency department (ED) personnel, experience significant occupational stress but the underlying stressors have not been well quantified. Such data inform interventions that can reduce cases of occupational mental illness, burnout, staff turnover and early retirement associated with cumulative stress.<h4>Aims</h4>To develop, implement and evaluate a questionnaire examining the origins of occupational stress in the ED.<h4>Methods</h4>A questionnaire co-designed by an occupational health practitioner and ED management administered to nursing, medical and support staff in the ED of a large English teaching hospital in 2015. The questionnaire assessed participants' demographic characteristics and perceptions of stress across three dimensions (demand-control-support, effort-reward and organizational justice). Work-related stressors in ED staff were compared with those of an unmatched control group from the acute ear, nose and throat (ENT) and neurology directorate.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 104 (59%) ED staff returned questionnaires compared to 72 staff (67%) from the acute ENT/neurology directorate. The ED respondents indicated lower levels of job autonomy, management support and involvement in organizational change, but not work demand. High levels of effort-reward imbalance and organizational injustice were reported by both groups.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our findings suggest that internal ED interventions to improve workers' job control, increase support from management and involvement in organizational change may reduce work stress. The high levels of effort-reward imbalance and organizational injustice reported by both groups may indicate that wider interventions beyond the ED are also needed to address these issues.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Liver disease mortality and morbidity are rapidly rising and liver transplantation is limited by organ availability. Small scale human studies have shown that stem cell therapy is safe and feasible and has suggested clinical benefit. No published studies have yet examined the effect of stem cell therapy in a randomised controlled trial and evaluated the effect of repeated therapy.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Patients with liver cirrhosis will be randomised to one of three trial groups: group 1: Control group, Standard conservative management; group 2 treatment: granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; lenograstim) 15 µg/kg body weight daily on days 1-5; group 3 treatment: G-CSF 15 µg/kg body weight daily on days 1-5 followed by leukapheresis, isolation and aliquoting of CD133+ cells. Patients will receive an infusion of freshly isolated CD133+ cells immediately and frozen doses at days 30 and 60 via peripheral vein (0.2×10(6) cells/kg for each of the three doses). Primary objective is to demonstrate an improvement in the severity of liver disease over 3 months using either G-CSF alone or G-CSF followed by repeated infusions of haematopoietic stem cells compared with standard conservative management. The trial is powered to answer two hypotheses of each treatment compared to control but not powered to detect smaller expected differences between the two treatment groups. As such, the overall α=0.05 for the trial is split equally between the two hypotheses. Conventionally, to detect a relevant standardised effect size of 0.8 point reduction in Model for End-stage Liver Disease score using two-sided α=0.05(overall α=0.1 split equally between the two hypotheses) and 80% power requires 27 participants to be randomised per group (81 participants in total).<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>The trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials on 18 November 2009 (ISRCTN number 91288089, EuDRACT number 2009-010335-41). The findings of this trial will be disseminated to patients and through peer-reviewed publications and international presentations.
<h4>Objective</h4>This study investigated the association between long-term exposure to black smoke (BS) air pollution and mortality in two related Scottish cohorts with 25 years of follow-up.<h4>Methods</h4>Risk factors were collected during 1970-1976 for 15331 and 6680 participants in the Renfrew/Paisley and Collaborative cohorts respectively. Exposure to BS during 1970-1979 was estimated by inverse-distance weighted averages of observed concentrations at monitoring sites and by two alternative spatial modelling approaches which included local air quality predictors (LAQP).<h4>Results</h4>Consistent BS-mortality associations (per 10 μg m(-3) increment in 10-year average BS) were observed in the Renfrew/Paisley cohort using LAQP-based exposure models (all-cause mortality HR 1.10 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.17); cardiovascular HR 1.11 (1.01 to 1.22); ischaemic heart disease HR 1.13 (1.02 to 1.25); respiratory HR 1.26 (1.02 to 1.28)). The associations were largely unaffected by additional adjustment for area-level deprivation category. A less consistent and generally implausible pattern of cause-specific BS-mortality associations was found for inverse-distance averaging of BS concentrations at nearby monitoring sites. BS-mortality associations in the Collaborative cohort were weaker and not statistically significant.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The association between mortality and long-term exposure to BS observed in the Renfrew/Paisley cohort is consistent with hypotheses of how air pollution may affect human health. The dissimilarity in pollution-mortality associations for different exposure models highlights the critical importance of reliable estimation of exposures on intraurban spatial scales to avoid potential misclassification bias.
Analysis of cancer drugs licensed through the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2000-2016 shows that the number of authorisations increased over that timeframe. The median number of licensed drugs each year rose from six for 2000-2008 to 13.5 for 2009-2016. Over 2000-2016, there were 64 drug authorisations for haematological, 15 for breast, and 12 for skin cancer, but none for oesophageal, brain, bladder, or uterine cancer. Only 6% of authorisations included a paediatric indication. The average time for a drug to progress from patent priority date to availability on the National Health Service (NHS) increased from 12.8 years for drugs first licensed in 2000-2008 to 14.0 years for those licensed in 2009-2016. There was evidence that the most innovative drugs were not being prioritised for EMA licensing and NICE approval.
The past 40 years have seen significant improvements in both event-free and overall survival for children with acute lymphoblastic and acute myeloid leukemia (ALL and AML, respectively). Serial national and international clinical trials have optimized the use of conventional chemotherapeutic drugs and, along with improvements in supportive care that have enabled the delivery of more intensive regimens, have been responsible for the major improvements in patient outcome seen over the past few decades. However, the benefits of dose intensification have likely now been maximized, and over the same period, the identification of new cytotoxic drugs has been limited. Therefore, challenges remain if survival is to be improved further. In pediatric ALL, 5-year-survival rates of over 85% have been achieved with risk-stratified therapy, but a notable minority of patients will still not be cured. In pediatric AML, different challenges remain. A slower improvement in overall survival has taken place in this patient population. Despite the obvious morphological heterogeneity of AML blasts, biological stratification is comparatively limited, and translation into risk-stratified therapeutic approaches has only best characterized by the use of retinoic acid for t(15;17)-positive AML. Even where prognostic markers have been identified, limited therapeutic options or multi-drug resistance of AML blasts has limited the impact on patient benefit. For both, the acute morbidities of current treatment remain significant and may be life-threatening alone. In addition, the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) highlighted many leukemia survivors develop one or more chronic medical conditions attributable to treatment (1, 2). As the biology of leukemogenesis has become better understood, key molecules and intracellular pathways have been identified that offer the possibility of targeting directly the leukemia cells while sparing normal cells. Consequently, there is now a drive to develop novel leukemia-specific or "targeted" therapies. These new classes of drugs will have mechanisms of action, toxicities, and therapeutic indices quite different from conventional cytotoxic drugs previously encountered, thus rendering current clinical trial methodologies inappropriate. Clinical trial methods will need to be adapted to accommodate these features of these new classes of drugs. This review will address the challenges and some of the techniques for developing clinical trials for targeted therapies.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Dose-escalation studies are essential in the early stages of developing novel treatments, when the aim is to find a safe dose for administration in humans. Despite their great importance, many dose-escalation studies use study designs based on heuristic algorithms with well-documented drawbacks. Bayesian decision procedures provide a design alternative that is conceptually simple and methodologically sound, but very rarely used in practice, at least in part due to their perceived statistical complexity. There are currently very few easily accessible software implementations that would facilitate their application. METHODS: We have created MoDEsT, a free and easy-to-use web application for designing and conducting single-agent dose-escalation studies with a binary toxicity endpoint, where the objective is to estimate the maximum tolerated dose. MoDEsT uses a well-established Bayesian decision procedure based on logistic regression. The software has a user-friendly point-and-click interface, makes changes visible in real time, and automatically generates a range of graphs, tables, and reports. It is aimed at clinicians as well as statisticians with limited expertise in model-based dose-escalation designs, and does not require any statistical programming skills to evaluate the operating characteristics of, or implement, the Bayesian dose-escalation design. RESULTS: MoDEsT comes in two parts: a 'Design' module to explore design options and simulate their operating characteristics, and a 'Conduct' module to guide the dose-finding process throughout the study. We illustrate the practical use of both modules with data from a real phase I study in terminal cancer. CONCLUSION: Enabling both methodologists and clinicians to understand and apply model-based study designs with ease is a key factor towards their routine use in early-phase studies. We hope that MoDEsT will enable incorporation of Bayesian decision procedures for dose escalation at the earliest stage of clinical trial design, thus increasing their use in early-phase trials.
INTRODUCTION: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with locally advanced disease often require multimodality treatment with surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy is offered to patients with high-risk pathological features postsurgery. While cure rates are improved, overall survival remains suboptimal and treatment has a significant negative impact on quality of life.Cell cycle checkpoint kinase inhibition is a promising method to selectively potentiate the therapeutic effects of chemoradiation. Our hypothesis is that combining chemoradiation with a WEE1 inhibitor will affect the biological response to DNA damage caused by cisplatin and radiation, thereby enhancing clinical outcomes, without increased toxicity. This trial explores the associated effect of WEE1 kinase inhibitor adavosertib (AZD1775). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This phase I dose-finding, open-label, multicentre trial aims to determine the highest safe dose of AZD1775 in combination with cisplatin chemotherapy preoperatively (group A) as a window of opportunity trial, and in combination with postoperative cisplatin-based chemoradiation (group B).Modified time-to-event continual reassessment method will determine the recommended dose, recruiting up to 21 patients per group. Primary outcomes are recommended doses with predefined target dose-limiting toxicity probabilities of 25% monitored up to 42 days (group A), and 30% monitored up to 12 weeks (group B). Secondary outcomes are disease-free survival times (groups A and B). Exploratory objectives are evaluation of pharmacodynamic (PD) effects, identification and correlation of potential biomarkers with PD markers of DNA damage, determine rate of resection status and surgical complications for group A; and quality of life in group B. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee, Edgbaston, West Midlands (REC reference 16/WM/0501) initial approval received on 18/01/2017. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76291951 and NCT03028766.
There is a limited access to liver transplantation, however, many organs are discarded based on subjective assessment only. Here we report the VITTAL clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02740608) outcomes, using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to objectively assess livers discarded by all UK centres meeting specific high-risk criteria. Thirty-one livers were enroled and assessed by viability criteria based on the lactate clearance to levels ≤2.5 mmol/L within 4 h. The viability was achieved by 22 (71%) organs, that were transplanted after a median preservation time of 18 h, with 100% 90-day survival. During the median follow up of 542 days, 4 (18%) patients developed biliary strictures requiring re-transplantation. This trial demonstrates that viability testing with NMP is feasible and in this study enabled successful transplantation of 71% of discarded livers, with 100% 90-day patient and graft survival; it does not seem to prevent non-anastomotic biliary strictures in livers donated after circulatory death with prolonged warm ischaemia.
<h4>Background</h4>Current rheumatoid arthritis therapies target immune inflammation and are subject to ceiling effects. Seliciclib is an orally available cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor that suppresses proliferation of synovial fibroblasts-cells not yet targeted in rheumatoid arthritis. Part 1 of this phase 1b/2a trial aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite ongoing treatment with TNF inhibitors, and to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics.<h4>Methods</h4>Phase 1b of the TRAFIC study was a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding trial done in rheumatology departments in five UK National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) fulfilled the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or the 2010 ACR-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had moderate to severe disease activity (a Disease Activity Score for 28 joints [DAS28] of ≥3·2) despite stable treatment with anti-TNF therapy for at least 3 months before enrolment. Participants were recruited sequentially to a maximum of seven cohorts of three participants each, designated to receive seliciclib 200 mg, 400 mg, 600 mg, 800 mg, or 1000 mg administered in 200 mg oral capsules. Sequential cohorts received doses determined by a restricted, one-stage Bayesian continual reassessment model, which determined the maximum tolerated dose (the primary outcome) based on a target dose-limiting toxicity rate of 35%. Seliciclib maximum concentration (C<sub>max</sub>) and area under the plasma concentration time curve 0-6 h (AUC<sub>0-6</sub>) were measured. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085.<h4>Findings</h4>Between Oct 8, 2015, and Aug 15, 2017, 37 patients were screened and 15 were enrolled to five cohorts and received seliciclib, after which the trial steering committee and the data monitoring committee determined that the maximum tolerated dose could be defined. In addition to a TNF inhibitor, ten (67%) enrolled patients were taking conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib was 400 mg, with an estimated dose-limiting toxicity probability of 0·35 (90% posterior probability interval 0·18-0·52). Two serious adverse events occurred (one acute kidney injury in a patient receiving the 600 mg dose and one drug-induced liver injury in a patient receiving the 400 mg dose), both considered to be related to seliciclib and consistent with its known safety profile. 65 non-serious adverse events occurred during the trial, 50 of which were considered to be treatment related. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild; 20 of the treatment-related non-serious adverse events contributed to dose-limiting toxicities. There were no deaths. Average C<sub>max</sub> and AUC<sub>0-6</sub> were two-times higher in participants developing dose-limiting toxicities.<h4>Interpretation</h4>The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib has been defined for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to TNF blockade. No unexpected safety concerns were identified to preclude ongoing clinical evaluation in a formal efficacy trial.<h4>Funding</h4>UK Medical Research Council, Cyclacel, Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre (Versus Arthritis), and the National Institute of Health Research Newcastle and Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres and Clinical Research Facilities.
Simulation studies have shown that novel designs such as the continual reassessment method and the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design outperform the 3 + 3 design by recommending the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) more often, using less patients, and allotting more patients to the MTD. However, it is not clear whether these novel designs would have yielded different results in the context of real-world dose-finding trials. This is a commonly mentioned reason for the continuous use of 3 + 3 designs for oncology trials, with investigators considering simulation studies not sufficiently convincing to warrant the additional design complexity of novel designs.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly sampled 60 published dose-finding trials to obtain 22 that used the 3 + 3 design, identified an MTD, published toxicity data, and had more than two dose levels. We compared the published MTD with the estimated MTD using the continual reassessment method and BOIN using target toxicity rates of 25% and 30% and toxicity data from the trial. Moreover, we compared patient allocation and sample size assuming that these novel designs had been implemented.<h4>Results</h4>Model-based designs chose dose levels higher than the published MTD in about 40% of the trials, with estimated and observed toxicity rates closer to the target toxicity rates of 25% and 30%. They also assigned less patients to suboptimal doses and permitted faster dose escalation.<h4>Conclusion</h4>This study using published dose-finding trials shows that novel designs would recommend different MTDs and confirms the advantages of these designs compared with the 3 + 3 design, which were demonstrated by simulation studies.
<h4>Background</h4>Adaptive model-based dose-finding designs have demonstrated advantages over traditional rule-based designs but have increased statistical complexity but uptake has been slow especially outside of cancer trials. TRAFIC is a multi-centre, early phase trial in rheumatoid arthritis incorporating a model-based design.<h4>Methods</h4>A Bayesian adaptive dose-finding phase I trial rolling into a single-arm, single-stage phase II trial. Model parameters for phase I were chosen via Monte Carlo simulation evaluating objective performance measures under clinically relevant scenarios and incorporated stopping rules for early termination. Potential designs were further calibrated utilising dose transition pathways.<h4>Discussion</h4>TRAFIC is an MRC-funded trial of a re-purposed treatment demonstrating that it is possible to design, fund and implement a model-based phase I trial in a non-cancer population within conventional research funding tracks and regulatory constraints. The phase I design allows borrowing of information from previous trials, all accumulated data to be utilised in decision-making, verification of operating characteristics through simulation, improved understanding for management and oversight teams through dose transition pathways. The rolling phase II design brings efficiencies in trial conduct including site and monitoring activities and cost. TRAFIC is the first funded model-based dose-finding trial in inflammatory disease demonstrating that small phase I/II trials can have an underlying statistical basis for decision-making and interpretation.<h4>Trial registration</h4>Trials Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085 . Registered on September 26, 2014.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Early phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>Ethics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.<h4>Trial registration number</h4>NCT04407676; Pre-results.
<h4>Background</h4>Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences.<h4>Results</h4>Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials.
Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.
Labial salivary gland (LSG) biopsy is used in the classification of primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) and in patient stratification in clinical trials. It may also function as a biomarker. The acquisition of tissue and histological interpretation is variable and needs to be standardised for use in clinical trials. A modified European League Against Rheumatism consensus guideline development strategy was used. The steering committee of the ad hoc working group identified key outstanding points of variability in LSG acquisition and analysis. A 2-day workshop was held to develop consensus where possible and identify points where further discussion/data was needed. These points were reviewed by a subgroup of experts on PSS histopathology and then circulated via an online survey to 50 stakeholder experts consisting of rheumatologists, histopathologists and oral medicine specialists, to assess level of agreement (0-10 scale) and comments. Criteria for agreement were a mean score ≥6/10 and 75% of respondents scoring ≥6/10. Thirty-nine (78%) experts responded and 16 points met criteria for agreement. These points are focused on tissue requirements, identification of the characteristic focal lymphocytic sialadenitis, calculation of the focus score, identification of germinal centres, assessment of the area of leucocyte infiltration, reporting standards and use of prestudy samples for clinical trials. We provide standardised consensus guidance for the use of labial salivary gland histopathology in the classification of PSS and in clinical trials and identify areas where further research is required to achieve evidence-based consensus.
<h4>Background</h4>Data suggest that immunomodulation induced by DNA hypomethylating agents can sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation trial (NCT02998567) of guadecitabine and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. We hypothesized that guadecitabine will overcome pembrolizumab resistance.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients received guadecitabine (45 mg/m<sup>2</sup> or 30 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, administered subcutaneously on days 1-4), with pembrolizumab (200 mg administered intravenously starting from cycle 2 onwards) every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose; secondary and exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), changes in methylome, transcriptome, immune contextures in pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor biopsies.<h4>Results</h4>Between January 2017 and January 2020, 34 patients were enrolled. The recommended phase II dose was guadecitabine 30 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, days 1-4, and pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks. Two dose-limiting toxicities (neutropenia, febrile neutropenia) were reported at guadecitabine 45 mg/m<sup>2</sup> with none reported at guadecitabine 30 mg/m<sup>2</sup>. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (58.8%), fatigue (17.6%), febrile neutropenia (11.8%) and nausea (11.8%). Common, grade 3+ TRAEs were neutropaenia (38.2%) and febrile neutropaenia (11.8%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Overall, 30 patients were evaluable for antitumor activity; ORR was 7% with 37% achieving disease control (progression-free survival) for ≥24 weeks. Of 12 evaluable patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 10 had been previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors with 5 (42%) having disease control ≥24 weeks (clinical benefit). Reduction in LINE<i>-</i>1 DNA methylation following treatment in blood (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) and tissue samples was demonstrated and methylation at transcriptional start site and 5' untranslated region gene regions showed enriched negative correlation with gene expression. Increases in intra-tumoural effector T-cells were seen in some responding patients. Patients having clinical benefit had high baseline inflammatory signature on RNAseq analyses.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Guadecitabine in combination with pembrolizumab is tolerable with biological and anticancer activity. Reversal of previous resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors is demonstrated.
Treatment of patients who suffer from concurrent health conditions is not well served by (1) evidence-based clinical guidelines that mainly specify treatment of single conditions and (2) conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that identify treatments as safe and effective on <i>average</i>. Clinical decision-making based on the average patient effect may be inappropriate for treatment of those with multimorbidity who experience burdens and obstacles that may be unique to their personal situation. We describe how the personalized (N-of-1) trials can be integrated with an automatic platform and virtual/remote technologies to improve patient-centered care for those living with multimorbidity. To illustrate, we present a hypothetical clinical scenario-survivors of both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and cancer who chronically suffer from sleeplessness and fatigue. Then, we will describe how the four standard phases of conventional RCT development can be modified for personalized trials and applied to the multimorbidity clinical scenario, outline how personalized trials can be adapted and extended to compare the benefits of personalized trials versus between-subject trial design, and explain how personalized trials can address special problems associated with multimorbidity for which conventional trials are poorly suited.
<h4>Background</h4>Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease in which molecular stratification is needed to improve clinical outcomes. The identification of predictive biomarkers can have a major impact on the care of these patients, but the availability of metastatic tissue samples for research in this setting is limited.<h4>Objective</h4>To study the prevalence of immune biomarkers of potential clinical utility to immunotherapy in mCRPC and to determine their association with overall survival (OS).<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>From 100 patients, mCRPC biopsies were assayed by whole exome sequencing, targeted next-generation sequencing, RNA sequencing, tumor mutational burden, T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) score (Nanostring), and immunohistochemistry for programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1), ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM), phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), SRY homology box 2 (SOX2), and the presence of neuroendocrine features.<h4>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis</h4>The phi coefficient determined correlations between biomarkers of interest. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) from Cox regression.<h4>Results and limitations</h4>PD-L1 and SOX2 protein expression was detected by immunohistochemistry (combined positive score ≥1 and >5% cells, respectively) in 24 (33%) and 27 (27%) mCRPC biopsies, respectively; 23 (26%) mCRPC biopsies had high TcellinfGEP scores (>-0.318). PD-L1 protein expression and TcellinfGEP scores were positively correlated (phi 0.63 [0.45; 0.76]). PD-L1 protein expression (aHR: 1.90 [1.05; 3.45]), high TcellinfGEP score (aHR: 1.86 [1.04; 3.31]), and SOX2 expression (aHR: 2.09 [1.20; 3.64]) were associated with worse OS.<h4>Conclusions</h4>PD-L1, TcellinfGEP score, and SOX2 are prognostic of outcome from the mCRPC setting. If validated, predictive biomarker studies incorporating survival endpoints need to take these findings into consideration.<h4>Patient summary</h4>This study presents an analysis of immune biomarkers in biopsies from patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We describe tumor alterations that predict prognosis that can impact future studies.
<h4>Background and objectives</h4>To investigate how subgroup analyses of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are performed when subgroups are created from continuous variables.<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a review of RCTs published in 2016-2021 that included subgroup analyses. Information was extracted on whether any of the subgroups were based on continuous variables and, if so, how they were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>Out of 428 reviewed papers, 258 (60.4%) reported RCTs with a subgroup analysis. Of these, 178/258 (69%) had at least one subgroup formed from a continuous variable and 14/258 (5.4%) were unclear. The vast majority (169/178, 94.9%) dichotomized the continuous variable and treated the subgroup as categorical. The most common way of dichotomizing was using a pre-specified cutpoint (129/169, 76.3%), followed by a data-driven cutpoint (26/169, 15.4%), such as the median.<h4>Conclusion</h4>It is common for subgroup analyses to use continuous variables to define subgroups. The vast majority dichotomize the continuous variable and, consequently, may lose substantial amounts of statistical information (equivalent to reducing the sample size by at least a third). More advanced methods that can improve efficiency, through optimally choosing cutpoints or directly using the continuous information, are rarely used.
Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.
<h4>Background</h4>Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations.<h4>Methods</h4>Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols.<h4>Results</h4>We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement.<h4>Discussion</h4>Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.
IMPORTANCE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. OBJECTIVE: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. FINDINGS: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.
This paper reports guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans for early phase clinical trials, ensuring specification of the minimum reporting analysis requirements, by detailing extensions (11 new items) and modifications (25 items) to existing guidance after a review by various stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia are poor. Long-term survival depends on reaching a second chronic phase, followed by allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We investigated whether the novel combination of the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor ponatinib with fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) could improve response and optimise allogeneic HSCT outcomes in patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. The aim was to identify a dose of ponatinib, which combined with FLAG-IDA, showed clinically meaningful activity and tolerability. METHODS: MATCHPOINT was a seamless, phase 1/2, multicentre trial done in eight UK Trials Acceleration Programme-funded centres. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥16 years) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive or BCR-ABL1-positive blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, suitable for intensive chemotherapy. Participants received up to two cycles of ponatinib with FLAG-IDA. Experimental doses of oral ponatinib (given from day 1 to day 28 of FLAG-IDA) were between 15 mg alternate days and 45 mg once daily and the starting dose was 30 mg once daily. Intravenous fludarabine (30 mg/m2 for 5 days), cytarabine (2 g/m2 for 5 days), and idarubicin (8 mg/m2 for 3 days), and subcutaneous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (if used), were delivered according to local protocols. We used an innovative EffTox design to investigate the activity and tolerability of ponatinib-FLAG-IDA; the primary endpoints were the optimal ponatinib dose meeting prespecified thresholds of activity (inducement of second chronic phase defined as either haematological or minor cytogenetic response) and tolerability (dose-limiting toxicties). Analyses were planned on an intention-to-treat basis. MATCHPOINT was registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, ISRCTN98986889, and has completed recruitment; the final results are presented. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 17 patients (12 men, five women) were recruited, 16 of whom were evaluable for the coprimary outcomes. Median follow-up was 41 months (IQR 36-48). The EffTox model simultaneously considered clinical responses and dose-limiting toxicities, and determined the optimal ponatinib dose as 30 mg daily, combined with FLAG-IDA. 11 (69%) of 16 patients were in the second chronic phase after one cycle of treatment. Four (25%) patients had a dose-limiting toxicity (comprising cardiomyopathy and grade 4 increased alanine aminotransferase, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, grade 3 increased amylase, and grade 4 increased alanine aminotransferase), fulfilling the criteria for clinically relevant activity and toxicity. 12 (71%) of 17 patients proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events were lung infection (n=4 [24%]), fever (n=3 [18%]), and hypocalcaemia (n=3 [18%]). There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 (65%) patients. Three (18%) patients died due to treatment-related events (due to cardiomyopathy, pulmonary haemorrhage, and bone marrow aplasia). INTERPRETATION: Ponatinib-FLAG-IDA can induce second chronic phase in patients with blast-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, representing an active salvage therapy to bridge to allogeneic HSCT. The number of treatment-related deaths is not in excess of what would be expected in this very high-risk group of patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. The efficient EffTox method is a model for investigating novel therapies in ultra-orphan cancers. FUNDING: Blood Cancer UK and Incyte.
MOTIVATION: Platform designs - master protocols that allow for new treatment arms to be added over time - have gained considerable attention in recent years. Between 2001 and 2019, 16 platform trials were initiated globally. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have provided a new motivation for these designs. We conducted a rapid review to quantify and describe platform trials used in COVID-19. METHODS: We cross-referenced PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cytel COVID-19 Clinical Trials Tracker to identify platform trials, defined by their stated ability to add future arms. RESULTS: We identified 58 COVID-19 platform trials globally registered between January 2020 and May 2021. According to trial registries, 16 trials have added new therapies (median 3, IQR 4) and 11 have dropped arms (median 3, IQR 2.5). About 50% of trials publicly share their protocol, and 31 trials (53%) intend to share trial data. Forty-nine trials (84%) explicitly report adaptive features, and 21 trials (36%) state Bayesian methods. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, there has been a surge in the number of platform trials compared to historical use. While transparency in statistical methods and clarity of data sharing policies needs improvement, platform trials appear particularly well-suited for rapid evidence generation. Trials secured funding quickly and many succeeded in adding new therapies in a short time period, thus demonstrating the potential for these trial designs to be implemented beyond the pandemic. The evidence gathered here may provide ample insight to further inform operational, statistical, and regulatory aspects of future platform trial conduct.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug's tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT. METHODS: A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes. RESULTS: International survey: 112 responses from 15 September-30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use. METHODS: DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted. RESULTS: 5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected. CONCLUSIONS: PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.
BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs are a wide class of methods focused on improving the power, efficiency and participant benefit of clinical trials. They do this through allowing information gathered during the trial to be used to make changes in a statistically robust manner - the changes could include which treatment arms patients are enrolled to (e.g. dropping non-promising treatment arms), the allocation ratios, the target sample size or the enrolment criteria of the trial. Generally, we are enthusiastic about adaptive designs and advocate their use in many clinical situations. However, they are not always advantageous. In some situations, they provide little efficiency advantage or are even detrimental to the quality of information provided by the trial. In our experience, factors that reduce the efficiency of adaptive designs are routinely downplayed or ignored in methodological papers, which may lead researchers into believing they are more beneficial than they actually are. MAIN TEXT: In this paper, we discuss situations where adaptive designs may not be as useful, including situations when the outcomes take a long time to observe, when dropping arms early may cause issues and when increased practical complexity eliminates theoretical efficiency gains. CONCLUSION: Adaptive designs often provide notable efficiency benefits. However, it is important for investigators to be aware that they do not always provide an advantage. There should always be careful consideration of the potential benefits and disadvantages of an adaptive design.
PURPOSE: Salvage options for patients who relapse after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplasia (MDS) remain limited, and novel treatment strategies are required. Both lenalidomide (LEN) and azacitidine (AZA) possess significant antitumor activity effect in AML. Administration of LEN post-transplantation is associated with excessive rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but AZA has been shown to ameliorate GVHD in murine transplantation models. We therefore examined the tolerability and activity of combined LEN/AZA administration in post-transplantation relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients who had relapsed after allo-SCT for AML (n = 24) or MDS (n = 5) were treated with sequential AZA (75 mg/m2 for 7 days) followed by escalating doses of LEN on days 10 to 30. Dose allocation and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) estimation were guided by a modified Bayesian continuous reassessment method (CRM). RESULTS: Sequential AZA and LEN therapy was well tolerated. The MTD of post-transplantation LEN, in combination with AZA, was determined as 25 mg daily. Three patients developed grade 2 to 4 GVHD. There was no GVHD-related mortality. Seven of 15 (47%) patients achieved a major clinical response after LEN/AZA therapy. CD8+ T cells demonstrated impaired interferon-γ/tumor necrosis factor-α production at relapse, which was not reversed during LEN/AZA administration. CONCLUSION: We conclude LEN can be administered safely post-allograft in conjunction with AZA, and this combination demonstrates clinical activity in relapsed AML/MDS without reversing biologic features of T-cell exhaustion. The use of a CRM model delivered improved efficiency in MTD assessment and provided additional flexibility. Combined LEN/AZA therapy represents a novel and active salvage therapy in patients who had relapsed post-allograft.
The ever-increasing pace of development of novel therapies mandates efficient methodologies for assessment of their tolerability and activity. Evidence increasingly support the merits of model-based dose-finding designs in identifying the recommended phase II dose compared with conventional rule-based designs such as the 3 + 3 but despite this, their use remains limited. Here, we propose a useful tool, dose transition pathways (DTP), which helps overcome several commonly faced practical and methodologic challenges in the implementation of model-based designs. DTP projects in advance the doses recommended by a model-based design for subsequent patients (stay, escalate, de-escalate, or stop early), using all the accumulated information. After specifying a model with favorable statistical properties, we utilize the DTP to fine-tune the model to tailor it to the trial's specific requirements that reflect important clinical judgments. In particular, it can help to determine how stringent the stopping rules should be if the investigated therapy is too toxic. Its use to design and implement a modified continual reassessment method is illustrated in an acute myeloid leukemia trial. DTP removes the fears of model-based designs as unknown, complex systems and can serve as a handbook, guiding decision-making for each dose update. In the illustrated trial, the seamless, clear transition for each dose recommendation aided the investigators' understanding of the design and facilitated decision-making to enable finer calibration of a tailored model. We advocate the use of the DTP as an integral procedure in the co-development and successful implementation of practical model-based designs by statisticians and investigators. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7440-7. ©2017 AACR.
In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.
Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.
<h4>Background</h4>Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is recognised as one of the causative agents for most cases of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). Elevated levels of EBV DNA are known to be associated with the onset of PTLD, but little information is available regarding how EBV loads change with time in asymptomatic transplant recipients following transplantation. Our aims were to study the trend of EBV loads in renal (RTx), hepatic, and cardiothoracic transplant recipients and to compare their EBV loads with other healthy and patient controls.<h4>Methods</h4>A prospective study was performed using a real-time TaqMan polymerase chain reaction technique to measure EBV DNA loads from three types of organ transplant recipients and haemodialysis patients (HD). Their results were then compared with those from the healthy controls (HC); monospot test negative (MN-) and infectious mononucleosis positive (IM+) patients; patients who were previously treated for PTLD (pPTLD); those who were currently diagnosed to have PTLD (PTLD+); and patients who had a stable renal, hepatic, or cardiothoracic graft for more than a year.<h4>Results</h4>Post-transplant EBV loads were significantly higher than the pre-transplant levels. Asymptomatic transplant recipients were differentiated from the PTLD+group at 600 genome copies of EBV/mug DNA, and from IM+group at 100 genome copies. Both HC and MN- groups had significantly lower EBV loads than the three transplant groups. The dynamic change of EBV loads in RTx was greater in the first post-transplant month when compared with the HD group. All transplant recipients had transient rises of EBV loads whereas EBV load continued to rise in one suspected PTLD patient.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Asymptomatic transplant recipients had higher baseline post-transplant EBV levels than the non-transplant and MN- groups. The rising post-transplant EBV load in these transplant recipients did not seem to be sustained for longer than 2 weeks. However, in a PTLD+patient the rising EBV load continued over a period of 4 weeks. Hence, the dynamic pattern of EBV loads is more important than absolute EBV DNA measurements alone in identifying those who might go on to develop PTLD.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>This project was approved by ICR's Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites.<h4>Registration details</h4>SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.
<h4>Purpose</h4>Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response.<h4>Results</h4>One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; <i>P</i> = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; <i>P</i> < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; <i>P</i> = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; <i>P</i> = .03). Serial analysis of <i>JAK2</i>V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] <i>P</i> = .001, EFS <i>P</i> = .001, overall survival <i>P</i> = .01) and clearance of <i>JAK2</i>V617F stem/progenitor cells. <i>ASXL</i>1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; <i>P</i> = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.
<h4>Background</h4>The paradigm of early phase dose-finding trials has evolved in recent years. Innovative dose-finding designs and protocols which combine phases I and II are becoming more popular in health research. However, the quality of these trial protocols is unknown due to a lack of specific reporting guidelines. Here, we evaluated the reporting quality of dose-finding trial protocols.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional study of oncology and non-oncology early phase dose-finding trial protocols posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2017-2023. A checklist of items comprising: 1) the original 33-items from the SPIRIT 2013 Statement and 2) additional items unique to dose-finding trials were used to assess reporting quality. The primary endpoint was the overall proportion of adequately reported items. This study was registered with PROSPERO (no: CRD42022314572).<h4>Finding</h4>A total of 106 trial protocols were included in the study with the rule-based 3 + 3 being the most used trial design (39.6%). Eleven model-based and model-assisted designs were identified in oncology trials only (11/58, 19.0%). The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65.1% (95%CI: 63.9-66.3%). However, the reporting quality of each individual item varied substantially (range 9.4%-100%). Oncology study protocols showed lower reporting quality than non-oncology. In the multivariable analysis, trials with larger sample sizes and industry funding were associated with higher proportions of adequately reported items (all p-values <0.05).<h4>Interpretation</h4>The overall reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols is suboptimal (65.1%). There is a need for improved completeness and transparency in early phase dose-finding trial protocols to facilitate rigorous trial conduct, reproducibility and external review.<h4>Funding</h4>None.
<h4>Background</h4>This project aims to: (1) assess the completeness of information in flow diagrams of published early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials based on CONSORT recommendations, and if additional features on dose (de-)escalation were presented; (2) propose new flow diagrams presenting how doses were (de-)escalated throughout the trial.<h4>Methods</h4>Flow diagrams were extracted from a random sample of 259 EPDF trials, published from 2011 to 2020 indexed in PubMed. Diagrams were scored out of 15 following CONSORT recommendations with an additional score for presence of (de-)escalation. New templates were proposed for features that were deficient and presented to 39 methodologists and 11 clinical trialists in October and December 2022.<h4>Results</h4>98 (38%) papers included a flow diagram. Flow diagrams were most deficient in the reporting of reasons for lost to follow up (2%) and reasons for not receiving allocated intervention (14%). Few (39%) presented sequential dose-decision stages. Of voting methodologists, 33/38 (87%) agreed or strongly agreed that for participants recruited in cohorts, presenting the (de-)escalation steps in the flow diagram is a useful feature, also expressed by the trial investigators. Most workshop attendees (35/39, 90%) preferred a larger dose to be displayed higher up within the flow diagram than a smaller dose.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Most published trials do not provide a flow diagram, and for those that do, essential information is often omitted. EPDF flow diagrams capturing information on participant flow in the trial's journey, encapsulated within one figure, are highly recommended to promote transparency and interpretability of trial results.
<h4>Background</h4>Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE).<h4>Methods</h4>The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback.<h4>Results</h4>The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar.<h4>Conclusions</h4>By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility.<h4>Trial registration</h4>SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).
<h4>Background</h4>Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).<h4>Methods</h4>DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.<h4>Findings</h4>Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.<h4>Interpretation</h4>This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.<h4>Funding</h4>EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.
Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer<sup>1</sup>. In patients with cancer, peripheral blood myeloid expansion, indicated by a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, associates with shorter survival and treatment resistance across malignancies and therapeutic modalities<sup>2-5</sup>. Whether myeloid inflammation drives progression of prostate cancer in humans remain unclear. Here we show that inhibition of myeloid chemotaxis can reduce tumour-elicited myeloid inflammation and reverse therapy resistance in a subset of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We show that a higher blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio reflects tumour myeloid infiltration and tumour expression of senescence-associated mRNA species, including those that encode myeloid-chemoattracting CXCR2 ligands. To determine whether myeloid cells fuel resistance to androgen receptor signalling inhibitors, and whether inhibiting CXCR2 to block myeloid chemotaxis reverses this, we conducted an investigator-initiated, proof-of-concept clinical trial of a CXCR2 inhibitor (AZD5069) plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic CRPC that is resistant to androgen receptor signalling inhibitors. This combination was well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity and it decreased circulating neutrophil levels, reduced intratumour CD11b<sup>+</sup>HLA-DR<sup>lo</sup>CD15<sup>+</sup>CD14<sup>-</sup> myeloid cell infiltration and imparted durable clinical benefit with biochemical and radiological responses in a subset of patients with metastatic CRPC. This study provides clinical evidence that senescence-associated myeloid inflammation can fuel metastatic CRPC progression and resistance to androgen receptor blockade. Targeting myeloid chemotaxis merits broader evaluation in other cancers.
Macrophage Clever-1 contributes to impaired antigen presentation and suppression of anti-tumor immunity. This first-in-human trial investigates the safety and tolerability of Clever-1 blockade with bexmarilimab in patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors and assesses preliminary anti-tumor efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. Bexmarilimab shows no dose-limiting toxicities in part I (n = 30) and no additional safety signals in part II (n = 108). Disease control (DC) rates of 25%-40% are observed in cutaneous melanoma, gastric, hepatocellular, estrogen receptor-positive breast, and biliary tract cancers. DC associates with improved survival in a landmark analysis and correlates with high pre-treatment intratumoral Clever-1 positivity and increasing on-treatment serum interferon γ (IFNγ) levels. Spatial transcriptomics profiling of DC and non-DC tumors demonstrates bexmarilimab-induced macrophage activation and stimulation of IFNγ and T cell receptor signaling selectively in DC patients. These data suggest that bexmarilimab therapy is well tolerated and show that macrophage targeting can promote immune activation and tumor control in late-stage cancer.
Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) enables pretransplant assessment of high-risk donor livers. The VITTAL trial demonstrated that 71% of the currently discarded organs could be transplanted with 100% 90-day patient and graft survivals. Here, we report secondary end points and 5-year outcomes of this prospective, open-label, phase 2 adaptive single-arm study. The patient and graft survivals at 60 months were 82% and 72%, respectively. Four patients lost their graft due to nonanastomotic biliary strictures, one caused by hepatic artery thrombosis in a liver donated following brain death, and 3 in elderly livers donated after circulatory death (DCD), which all clinically manifested within 6 months after transplantation. There were no late graft losses for other reasons. All the 4 patients who died during the study follow-up had functioning grafts. Nonanastomotic biliary strictures developed in donated after circulatory death livers that failed to produce bile with pH >7.65 and bicarbonate levels >25 mmol/L. Histological assessment in these livers revealed high bile duct injury scores characterized by arterial medial necrosis. The quality of life at 6 months significantly improved in all but 4 patients suffering from nonanastomotic biliary strictures. This first report of long-term outcomes of high-risk livers assessed by normothermic machine perfusion demonstrated excellent 5-year survival without adverse effects in all organs functioning beyond 1 year (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02740608).
<h4>Background</h4>Pre-clinical studies suggest AZD1775, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, potentiates the activity of various chemotherapeutic agents.<h4>Methods</h4>WISTERIA was a prospective, parallel two-group, open-label, dose-finding, phase I clinical trial. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed oral, laryngeal, or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, ECOG performance status 0/1, and aged ≥18-to-≤70 years. Primary outcomes were adverse events and defining recommended dose and schedule of AZD1775 in combination with cisplatin in pre-operative (Group A), or with cisplatin/radiotherapy in post-operative (Group B) patients. Dose determination was guided by a modified time-to-event continual reassessment method (mTITE-CRM).<h4>Results</h4>Between 30-Oct-2017 and 15-Jul-2019, nine patients were registered: Three into Group A and six into Group B. WISTERIA was closed early due to poor recruitment. Five dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in four Group B patients. Seven serious adverse events were reported in four patients: One in Group A, and three in Group B. Three were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths were reported.<h4>Conclusions</h4>WISTERIA did not complete its primary objectives due to poor recruitment and toxicities reported in Group B. However, use of the novel mTITE-CRM improved flexibility in reducing accrual suspension periods and should be considered for future trials in complex patient populations.<h4>Clinical trial registration</h4>ISRCTN76291951.
PURPOSE: The way late-onset toxicities are managed can affect trial outcomes and participant safety. Specifically, participants often might not have completed their entire follow-up period to observe any toxicities before new participants would be recruited. We conducted a methodological review of published early-phase dose-finding clinical trials that used designs accounting for partial and complete toxicity information, aiming to understand (1) how such designs were implemented and reported and (2) if sufficient information was provided to enable the replicability of trial results. METHODS: Until March 26, 2023, we identified 141 trials using the rolling 6 design, the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TITE-CRM), the TITE-CRM with cycle information, the TITE Bayesian optimal interval design, the TITE cumulative cohort design, and the rapid enrollment design. Clinical settings, design parameters, practical considerations, and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) information were extracted from these published trials. RESULTS: The TITE-CRM (61, 43.3%) and the rolling 6 design (76, 53.9%) were most frequently implemented in practice. Trials using the TITE-CRM had longer DLT assessment windows beyond the first cycle compared with the rolling 6 design (52.5% v 6.6%). Most trials implementing the TITE-CRM (91.8%, 56 of 61) failed to describe essential parameters in the protocols or the study result papers. Only five TITE-CRM trials (8.2%, 5 of 61) reported sufficient information to enable replication of the final analysis. CONCLUSION: When compared with trials using the rolling 6 design, those implementing the TITE-CRM design exhibited notable deficiencies in reporting essential details necessary for reproducibility. Inadequate reporting quality of advanced model-based trial designs hinders their credibility. We provide recommendations that can improve transparency, reproducibility, and accurate interpretation of the results for such designs.
<h4>Objectives</h4>To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter).<h4>Results</h4>Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake 'self-driven' referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.
In 2015, a groundswell of brain tumour patient, carer and charity activism compelled the UK Minister for Life Sciences to form a brain tumour research task and finish group. This resulted, in 2018, with the UK government pledging £20m of funding, to be paralleled with £25m from Cancer Research UK, specifically for neuro-oncology research over the subsequent 5 years. Herein, we review if and how the adult brain tumour research landscape in the United Kingdom has changed over that time and what challenges and bottlenecks remain. We have identified seven universal brain tumour research priorities and three cross-cutting themes, which span the research spectrum from bench to bedside and back again. We discuss the status, challenges and recommendations for each one, specific to the United Kingdom.
<h4>Background</h4>In light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials.<h4>Methods</h4>A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development.<h4>Results</h4>Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.
<h4>Background</h4>In a competitive landscape with many ongoing adjuvant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the prevalence of trials that failed to recruit their targeted sample size and were inadequately powered is unclear. The aims of the study are (i) to determine the percentage of trials with accrual and statistical power failure and (ii) to evaluate their potential impact on the drug development process.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic review was carried out to identify adjuvant phase III oncology RCTs reported between 2013 and 2023 across all solid tumours. No restrictions were applied regarding the type of intervention or journal of publication. The percentage of trials with accrual failure and power failure was estimated as well as their association with the efficacy endpoints. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).<h4>Results</h4>A total of 282 RCTs met the inclusion criteria with a median sample size of 661 patients and a median accrual period of 4.3 years. Most of these studies were superiority trials (83.0%). Accrual failure was observed in 22.0% of the studies, finishing recruitment without achieving the targeted sample size. Overall, 39.7% of the studies experienced power failure, having less power than specified in the protocol at the date of the read-out. Among superiority RCTs evaluating intermediate survival endpoints, only 31.1% presented statistically significant results. Trials with power failure were less likely to present statistically significant results (37.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.04). The association was consistent across all cancer types. In the subset of non-inferiority trials, 35.0% formally demonstrated non-inferiority of the experimental arm.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Nearly 40% of adjuvant phase III RCTs experienced power failure, and the reduction in power significantly impacted the final study results. There is a need for procedural refinements in the design and implementation of future adjuvant RCTs to mitigate these fallacies.
<h4>Background</h4>Determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) remains the primary objective for the majority of dose-finding oncology trials. Whilst MTD determination often relies upon clinicians to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) experienced by patients during the trial, research suggests that clinicians may underreport patient's adverse events. Therefore, contemporary practice may be exposed to recommending intolerable doses to patients for further investigation in subsequent trials. There is increasing interest in patients self-assessing their own symptoms using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in dose-finding trials.<h4>Design</h4>We present Utility-PRO-Continual Reassessment Method (U-PRO-CRM), a novel trial design which simultaneously uses clinician-rated and patient-rated DLTs (Clinician-DLTs and Patient-DLTs, respectively) to make dose (de-)escalation decisions and to recommend an MTD. U-PRO-CRM contains the published PRO-CRM as a special case and provides greater flexibility to trade-off the rate of Patient-DLTs and Clinician-DLTs to find an optimal dose. We present simulation results for U-PRO-CRM.<h4>Results</h4>For specified trade-offs between Clinician-DLT and Patient-DLT rate, U-PRO-CRM outperforms the PRO-CRM design by identifying the true MTD more often. In the special case where U-PRO-CRM generalises to PRO-CRM, U-PRO-CRM performs as well as its published counterpart. U-PRO-CRM minimises the number of patients overdosed whilst maintaining a similar proportion of patients allocated to the true MTD.<h4>Conclusions</h4>By using a utility-based dose selection approach, U-PRO-CRM offers the flexibility to define a trade-off between the risk of patient-rated and clinician-rated DLTs for an optimal dose. Patient-centric dose-finding strategies, which integrate PROs, are poised to assume an ever more pivotal role in significantly advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability. This bears significant implications in shaping the future landscape of early-phase trials.
Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies' risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.
<h4>Background</h4>Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903.<h4>Findings</h4>Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment-time interactions were -0·09 (95% CI -0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (-0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group.<h4>Interpretation</h4>Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation-as measured by CRP concentration-in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19.<h4>Funding</h4>Medical Research Council.
Book chapters
Abstract The main role of dose–response phase II trials within a clinical development plan is to identify a potentially efficacious dose that can be explored in phase III trials. Traditionally, designs have investigated a fixed set of doses with equal numbers of participants on each dose. Usually these designs are fixed before any data have been observed and it is rarely possible to select the most efficient choices. The dose range under investigation may include doses that have little or no observable effect or the doses that are too high and potentially have toxicities. A dose–response adaptive trial allows changes to the doses selected during the conduct of the trial in order to make better dose choices. The better dose choices could be to allow the most efficient estimation of the dose–response relationship or to select the most promising dose. This article highlights the various issues with trying to implement dose–response adaptive designs and demonstrate the compromises that need to be made between optimal choices and the reality.
Abstract The main objective of a phase II randomized multi-arm selection trial is to identify the most promising treatment among multiple competing experimental regimens, when it truly exists. A multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) design could be used to allow for preplanned adaptations based on the interim data. In particular, response-adaptive randomization (AR) aims to steer patients away from the inferior treatments by updating the allocation probability throughout. Two AR approaches are the Bayesian AR and a frequentist alternative known as sequential elimination. The latter closes arms that are noticeably worse to the best arm at interim evaluations, and hence channel more patients to the more promising open treatment arms. A Bayesian futility monitoring rule based on comparison to the historical response rate of standard treatment could also be incorporated. The two AR approaches and Bayesian MAMS are compared against a single-stage pick-the-winner selection design. There are clear advantages of using such adaptive selection designs compared to a single-stage design, with the ethical attractiveness of allocating more patients to better performing arms. The improved performance is even more evident if there is a clear winner or if all arms are futile. It is particularly important to incorporate futility monitoring to improve the design’s overall performance.