BACKGROUND: Pediatric phase I oncology trials have historically focused on safety and toxicity, with objective response rates (ORRs) <10%. Recently, with an emphasis on targeted approaches, response rates may have changed. We analyzed outcomes of recent phase I pediatric oncology trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials published in 2012-2017, identified through PubMed and EMBASE searches conducted on March 14, 2018. Selection criteria included full-text articles with a pediatric population, cancer diagnosis, and a dose escalation schema. Each publication was evaluated for patient characteristics, therapy type, trial design, toxicity, and response. RESULTS: Of 3,431 citations, 109 studies (2,713 patients) met eligibility criteria. Of these, 78 (72%) trials incorporated targeted therapies. Median age at enrollment/trial was 11 years (range 3-21 years). There were 2,471 patients (91%) evaluable for toxicity, of whom 300 (12.1%) experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Of 2,143 patients evaluable for response, 327 (15.3%) demonstrated an objective response. Forty-three (39%) trials had no objective responses. Nineteen trials (17%) had an ORR >25%, of which 11 were targeted trials and 8 were combination cytotoxic trials. Targeted trials demonstrated a lower DLT rate compared with cytotoxic trials (10.6% vs. 14.7%; p = .003) with similar ORRs (15.0% vs. 15.9%; p = .58). CONCLUSION: Pediatric oncology phase I trials in the current treatment era have an acceptable DLT rate and a pooled ORR of 15.3%. A subset of trials with target-specific enrollment or combination cytotoxic therapies showed high response rates, highlighting the importance of these strategies in early phase trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Enrollment in phase I oncology trials is crucial for development of novel therapies. This systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials provides an assessment of outcomes of phase I trials in children, with a specific focus on the impact of targeted therapies. These data may aid in evaluating the landscape of current phase I options for patients and enable more informed communication regarding risk and benefit of phase I clinical trial participation. The results also suggest that, in the current treatment era, there is a rationale to increase earlier access to targeted therapy trials for this refractory patient population. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric phase I oncology trials have historically focused on safety and toxicity, with objective response rates (ORRs) <10%. Recently, with an emphasis on targeted approaches, response rates may have changed. We analyzed outcomes of recent phase I pediatric oncology trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials published in 2012-2017, identified through PubMed and EMBASE searches conducted on March 14, 2018. Selection criteria included full-text articles with a pediatric population, cancer diagnosis, and a dose escalation schema. Each publication was evaluated for patient characteristics, therapy type, trial design, toxicity, and response. RESULTS: Of 3,431 citations, 109 studies (2,713 patients) met eligibility criteria. Of these, 78 (72%) trials incorporated targeted therapies. Median age at enrollment/trial was 11 years (range 3-21 years). There were 2,471 patients (91%) evaluable for toxicity, of whom 300 (12.1%) experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Of 2,143 patients evaluable for response, 327 (15.3%) demonstrated an objective response. Forty-three (39%) trials had no objective responses. Nineteen trials (17%) had an ORR >25%, of which 11 were targeted trials and 8 were combination cytotoxic trials. Targeted trials demonstrated a lower DLT rate compared with cytotoxic trials (10.6% vs. 14.7%; p = .003) with similar ORRs (15.0% vs. 15.9%; p = .58). CONCLUSION: Pediatric oncology phase I trials in the current treatment era have an acceptable DLT rate and a pooled ORR of 15.3%. A subset of trials with target-specific enrollment or combination cytotoxic therapies showed high response rates, highlighting the importance of these strategies in early phase trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Enrollment in phase I oncology trials is crucial for development of novel therapies. This systematic review of phase I pediatric oncology trials provides an assessment of outcomes of phase I trials in children, with a specific focus on the impact of targeted therapies. These data may aid in evaluating the landscape of current phase I options for patients and enable more informed communication regarding risk and benefit of phase I clinical trial participation. The results also suggest that, in the current treatment era, there is a rationale to increase earlier access to targeted therapy trials for this refractory patient population. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Rebecca A Gardner; Olivia Finney; Colleen Annesley; Hannah Brakke; Corinne Summers; Kasey Leger; Marie Bleakley; Christopher Brown; Stephanie Mgebroff; Karen S Kelly-Spratt; Virginia Hoglund; Catherine Lindgren; Assaf P Oron; Daniel Li; Stanley R Riddell; Julie R Park; Michael C Jensen Journal: Blood Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Steffen Hirsch; Lynley V Marshall; Fernando Carceller Lechon; Andrew D J Pearson; Lucas Moreno Journal: Expert Opin Drug Discov Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 6.098
Authors: Gilles Vassal; C Michel Zwaan; David Ashley; Marie Cecile Le Deley; Darren Hargrave; Patricia Blanc; Peter C Adamson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Daniel W Lee; James N Kochenderfer; Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson; Yongzhi K Cui; Cindy Delbrook; Steven A Feldman; Terry J Fry; Rimas Orentas; Marianna Sabatino; Nirali N Shah; Seth M Steinberg; Dave Stroncek; Nick Tschernia; Constance Yuan; Hua Zhang; Ling Zhang; Steven A Rosenberg; Alan S Wayne; Crystal L Mackall Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Susan R Rheingold; Sarah K Tasian; James A Whitlock; David T Teachey; Michael J Borowitz; Xiaowei Liu; Charles G Minard; Elizabeth Fox; Brenda J Weigel; Susan M Blaney Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Daniel A Morgenstern; Darren Hargrave; Lynley V Marshall; Susanne A Gatz; Giuseppe Barone; Tracey Crowe; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Stergios Zacharoulis; Donna L Lancaster; Sucheta J Vaidya; Julia C Chisholm; Andrew D J Pearson; Lucas Moreno Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Aiman J Faruqi; John A Ligon; Julia W Cohen; Srivandana Akshintala; Brigitte C Widemann; Nirali N Shah Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 5.837