Literature DB >> 30808815

Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials.

Laura Franshaw1, Maria Tsoli1, Jennifer Byrne2, Chelsea Mayoh1, Siva Sivarajasingam1, Murray Norris1,3, Glenn M Marshall1,4, David S Ziegler5,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are limited data to predict which novel childhood cancer therapies are likely to be successful. To help rectify this, we sought to identify the factors that impact the success of phase II clinical trials for pediatric malignancies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the impact of 24 preclinical and trial design variables for their influence on 132 phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials. Success was determined by an objective assessment of patient response, with data analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Pearson's chi-square test, and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Trials that evaluated patients with a single histological cancer type were more successful than those that assessed multiple different cancer types (68% vs. 47%, 27%, and 17% for 1, 2-3, 4-7, and 8+; p < .005). Trials on liquid or extracranial solid tumors were more successful than central nervous system or combined trials (70%, 60%, 38%, and 24%; p < .005), and trials of combination therapies were more successful than single agents (71% vs. 28%; p < .005). Trials that added therapies to standard treatment backbones were more successful than trials testing novel therapies alone or those that incorporated novel agents (p < .005), and trials initiated based on the results of adult studies were less likely to succeed (p < .05). For 61% of trials (80/132), we were unable to locate any relevant preclinical findings to support the trial. When preclinical studies were carried out (52/132), there was no evidence that the conduct of any preclinical experiments made the trial more likely to succeed (p < .005).
CONCLUSION: Phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials that examine a single cancer type and use combination therapies have the highest possibility of clinical success. Trials building upon a standard treatment regimen were also more successful. The conduct of preclinical experiments did not improve clinical success, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of the translational relevance of current preclinical testing paradigms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To improve the clinical outcomes of phase II childhood cancer trials, this study identified factors impacting clinical success. These results have the potential to impact not only the design of future clinical trials but also the assessment of preclinical studies moving forward. This work found that trials on one histological cancer type and trials testing combination therapies had the highest possibility of success. Incorporation of novel therapies into standard treatment backbones led to higher success rates than testing novel therapies alone. This study found that most trials had no preclinical evidence to support initiation, and even when preclinical studies were available, they did not result in improved success. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Oncology; Pediatric; Phase II; Predictors; Success

Year:  2019        PMID: 30808815      PMCID: PMC6693728          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0666

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  41 in total

1.  Antitumour activity of oxaliplatin in neuroblastoma cell lines.

Authors:  A Riccardi; C Ferlini; D Meco; R Mastrangelo; G Scambia; R Riccardi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Inhibition of platelet-derived growth factor-mediated proliferation of osteosarcoma cells by the novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571.

Authors:  Eric C McGary; Kristy Weber; Lisa Mills; Michelle Doucet; Valerie Lewis; Dina Chelouche Lev; Isaiah J Fidler; Menashe Bar-Eli
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Treatment of Hodgkin's disease in children with VAMP (vinblastine, adriamycin, methotrexate, prednisone) and VEPA (vinblastine, etoposide, prednisone, adriamycin).

Authors:  P Kavan; E Kabickova; J Koutecky; K McClain; P Gajdos; R Kodet; Z Slavik; K Tousovska
Journal:  Pediatr Hematol Oncol       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.969

4.  Combined cimetidine and temozolomide, compared with temozolomide alone: significant increases in survival in nude mice bearing U373 human glioblastoma multiforme orthotopic xenografts.

Authors:  Florence Lefranc; Syril James; Isabelle Camby; Jean-François Gaussin; Francis Darro; Jacques Brotchi; Joachim Gabius; Robert Kiss
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 5.  Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models.

Authors:  Theodora Voskoglou-Nomikos; Joseph L Pater; Lesley Seymour
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 6.  Clinical trials in children.

Authors:  Patrina H Y Caldwell; Sharon B Murphy; Phyllis N Butow; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004 Aug 28-Sep 3       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Human tumor xenografts as predictive preclinical models for anticancer drug activity in humans: better than commonly perceived-but they can be improved.

Authors:  Robert S Kerbel
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.742

8.  Evaluation of anti-tumour effects of oral fenretinide (4-HPR) in rats with human neuroblastoma xenografts.

Authors:  Frida Ponthan; Magnus Lindskog; Nina Karnehed; Juan Castro; Per Kogner
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.906

9.  VAMP and low-dose, involved-field radiation for children and adolescents with favorable, early-stage Hodgkin's disease: results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Sarah S Donaldson; Melissa M Hudson; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael P Link; Larry Kun; Amy Louise Billett; Karen C Marcus; Craig A Hurwitz; Jeffrey A Young; Nancy J Tarbell; Howard J Weinstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Signature-based small molecule screening identifies cytosine arabinoside as an EWS/FLI modulator in Ewing sarcoma.

Authors:  Kimberly Stegmaier; Jenny S Wong; Kenneth N Ross; Kwan T Chow; David Peck; Renee D Wright; Stephen L Lessnick; Andrew L Kung; Todd R Golub
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  2 in total

1.  Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Karolina Strzebonska; Mateusz T Wasylewski; Lucja Zaborowska; Maciej Polak; Emilia Slugocka; Jakub Stras; Mateusz Blukacz; Bishal Gyawali; Marcin Waligora
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 4.493

2.  Small-molecule screen reveals synergy of cell cycle checkpoint kinase inhibitors with DNA-damaging chemotherapies in medulloblastoma.

Authors:  Raelene Endersby; Jacqueline Whitehouse; Allison Pribnow; Mani Kuchibhotla; Hilary Hii; Brooke Carline; Suresh Gande; Jennifer Stripay; Mathew Ancliffe; Meegan Howlett; Tobias Schoep; Courtney George; Clara Andradas; Patrick Dyer; Marjolein Schluck; Brett Patterson; Silvia K Tacheva-Gigorova; Matthew N Cooper; Giles Robinson; Clinton Stewart; Stefan M Pfister; Marcel Kool; Till Milde; Amar Gajjar; Terrance Johns; Robert J Wechsler-Reya; Martine F Roussel; Nicholas G Gottardo
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 19.319

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.