Literature DB >> 30443782

Increasing complexity in oncology phase I clinical trials.

Laeeq Malik1,2, David Lu3.   

Abstract

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

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complexity; Phase I; Trials

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30443782     DOI: 10.1007/s10637-018-0699-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest New Drugs        ISSN: 0167-6997            Impact factor:   3.850


  10 in total

Review 1.  Anticancer agents targeting signaling molecules and cancer cell environment: challenges for drug development?

Authors:  K A Gelmon; E A Eisenhauer; A L Harris; M J Ratain; P Workman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-08-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Novel endpoints and design of early clinical trials.

Authors:  W R Parulekar; E A Eisenhauer
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 32.976

3.  The costs of conducting clinical research.

Authors:  Ezekiel J Emanuel; Lowell E Schnipper; Deborah Y Kamin; Jenifer Levinson; Allen S Lichter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-14       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Measuring clinical trial-associated workload in a community clinical oncology program.

Authors:  Marjorie J Good; Barbara Lubejko; Keisha Humphries; Andrea Medders
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance.

Authors:  Kenneth A Getz; Julia Wenger; Rafael A Campo; Edward S Seguine; Kenneth I Kaitin
Journal:  Am J Ther       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.688

6.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: the critical role of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Weber; Laura A Levit; Peter C Adamson; Suanna Bruinooge; Howard A Burris; Michael A Carducci; Adam P Dicker; Mithat Gönen; Stephen M Keefe; Michael A Postow; Michael A Thompson; David M Waterhouse; Susan L Weiner; Lynn M Schuchter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data.

Authors:  Kenneth A Getz; Stella Stergiopoulos; Michelle Marlborough; Jane Whitehill; Marla Curran; Kenneth I Kaitin
Journal:  Am J Ther       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.688

8.  Factors affecting workload of cancer clinical trials: results of a multicenter study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

Authors:  Kathyrn Roche; Nancy Paul; Bobbi Smuck; Marlo Whitehead; Benny Zee; Joseph Pater; Mary-Anne Hiatt; Hugh Walker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Predicting success in regulatory approval from Phase I results.

Authors:  Laeeq Malik; Alex Mejia; Helen Parsons; Benjamin Ehler; Devalingam Mahalingam; Andrew Brenner; John Sarantopoulos; Steven Weitman
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 3.333

10.  The changing face of phase 1 cancer clinical trials: new challenges in study requirements.

Authors:  Barbara S Craft; Razelle Kurzrock; Xiudong Lei; Roy Herbst; Scott Lippman; Siqing Fu; Daniel D Karp
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Machine Learning Prediction of Clinical Trial Operational Efficiency.

Authors:  Kevin Wu; Eric Wu; Michael DAndrea; Nandini Chitale; Melody Lim; Marek Dabrowski; Klaudia Kantor; Hanoor Rangi; Ruishan Liu; Marius Garmhausen; Navdeep Pal; Chris Harbron; Shemra Rizzo; Ryan Copping; James Zou
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals' perspectives.

Authors:  Helene Markham Jones; Ffion Curtis; Graham Law; Christopher Bridle; Dorothy Boyle; Tanweer Ahmed
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Supportive Care: An Indispensable Component of Modern Oncology.

Authors:  R Berman; A Davies; T Cooksley; R Gralla; L Carter; E Darlington; F Scotté; C Higham
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2020-08-16       Impact factor: 4.126

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.