Literature DB >> 20215542

Approaches to phase 1 clinical trial design focused on safety, efficiency, and selected patient populations: a report from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee.

S Percy Ivy1, Lillian L Siu, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Larry Rubinstein.   

Abstract

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

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20215542      PMCID: PMC5207802          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  39 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Phase I (or phase II) dose-ranging clinical trials: proposal of a two-stage Bayesian design.

Authors:  Sarah Zohar; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 3.  Trends in the use and role of biomarkers in phase I oncology trials.

Authors:  Bernardo H L Goulart; Jeffrey W Clark; Homer H Pien; Thomas G Roberts; Stan N Finkelstein; Bruce A Chabner
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Phase 0 clinical trials: an answer to drug development stagnation?

Authors:  Patricia M LoRusso
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

6.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002.

Authors:  Elizabeth Horstmann; Mary S McCabe; Louise Grochow; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Larry Rubinstein; Troy Budd; Dale Shoemaker; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control.

Authors:  J Babb; A Rogatko; S Zacks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Phase 0 clinical trials in cancer drug development: from FDA guidance to clinical practice.

Authors:  Robert Kinders; Ralph E Parchment; Jay Ji; Shivaani Kummar; Anthony J Murgo; Martin Gutierrez; Jerry Collins; Larry Rubinstein; Oxana Pickeral; Seth M Steinberg; Sherry Yang; Melinda Hollingshead; Alice Chen; Lee Helman; Robert Wiltrout; Mel Simpson; Joseph E Tomaszewski; James H Doroshow
Journal:  Mol Interv       Date:  2007-12

9.  Dose-finding study of 153Sm-EDTMP in patients with poor-prognosis osteosarcoma.

Authors:  David M Loeb; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Robert F Hobbs; Andrew R Prideaux; George Sgouros; Ori Shokek; Moody D Wharam; Tammy Scott; Cindy L Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Anthony J Murgo; Shivaani Kummar; Larry Rubinstein; Martin Gutierrez; Jerry Collins; Robert Kinders; Ralph E Parchment; Jiuping Ji; Seth M Steinberg; Sherry X Yang; Melinda Hollingshead; Alice Chen; Lee Helman; Robert Wiltrout; Joseph E Tomaszewski; James H Doroshow
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  55 in total

1.  Novel therapies, high-risk pediatric research, and the prospect of benefit: learning from the ethical disagreements.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Dolan Sondhi; Ronald G Crystal
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 2.  Neoadjuvant paradigm for accelerated drug development: an ideal model in bladder cancer.

Authors:  David D Chism; Michael E Woods; Matthew I Milowsky
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-07-24

Review 3.  The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology.

Authors:  Kit Man Wong; Anna Capasso; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Identification of high-risk drugs related to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-sponsored phase I trials.

Authors:  Shun Kishimoto; Nobu Oshima; Matthew Rinker; Murali C Krishna; Naoko Takebe
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  Reading between the lines; understanding drug response in the post genomic era.

Authors:  Constantine C Alifrangis; Ultan McDermott
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 6.  Clinical Translation of Nanomedicine.

Authors:  Yuanzeng Min; Joseph M Caster; Michael J Eblan; Andrew Z Wang
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 7.  Evaluating the role of phase I expansion cohorts in oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Robin E Norris; Mohadese Behtaj; Pingfu Fu; Afshin Dowlati
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.850

8.  Preclinical pharmacology of novel indolecarboxamide ML-970, an investigative anticancer agent.

Authors:  Elizabeth Rayburn; Wei Wang; Mao Li; Xu Zhang; Hongxia Xu; Haibo Li; Jiang-Jiang Qin; Lee Jia; Joseph Covey; Moses Lee; Ruiwen Zhang
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 3.333

9.  The role of age on dose-limiting toxicities in phase I dose-escalation trials.

Authors:  A Schwandt; P J Harris; S Hunsberger; A Deleporte; G L Smith; D Vulih; B D Anderson; S P Ivy
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Early phase trial design for assessing several dose levels for toxicity and efficacy for targeted agents.

Authors:  Antje Hoering; Alan Mitchell; Michael LeBlanc; John Crowley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.