Jaclynne H Nader1, Dylan V Neel2, David S Shulman2,3, Clement Ma2,3, Florence Bourgeois2,4, Steven G DuBois2,3. 1. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Pediatric Therapeutics and Regulatory Science Initiative, Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people. METHODS: We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development.
OBJECTIVES: Understanding trends in characteristics of early phase trials that allow minors with cancer to participate may inform additional efforts to improve cancer drug development for young people. METHODS: We accessed data for oncology phase 1 or phase 1/2 trials in the United States from ClinicalTrials.gov with lower age bound for eligibility <18 years. Descriptive statistics were calculated and trends over time evaluated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred twelve trials met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five percent of trials were for older adults that also allowed minors, while 9% were exclusively for patients ≤18 years of age. Eighty-three percent of trials included at least one novel agent, while 17% studied only conventional therapies. Fifty-eight percent of trials studied treatments not yet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Fifteen percent of trials for which dose-escalation method could be determined, utilized a model-based design. Eighteen percent of all trials were industry sponsored (48% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). Forty-nine percent of all trials were multicenter (69% if exclusively for patients ≤18 years). There was an increase in trials exclusively focused on patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors over the study period (P ≤ .02). No other temporal trends were seen. The median times from first-in-adult to first-in-pediatric for monotherapy and combination trials were 5.7 and 3.3 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The paucity of clear temporal trends highlights the need for innovation in early drug development for young people. Our analysis serves as a benchmark against which to evaluate initiatives to improve pediatric cancer drug development.
Authors: Edward S Kim; David Bernstein; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Christine H Chung; Adam P Dicker; Jennifer L Ersek; Steven Stein; Fadlo R Khuri; Earle Burgess; Kelly Hunt; Percy Ivy; Suanna S Bruinooge; Neal Meropol; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lucas Moreno; Andrew D J Pearson; Xavier Paoletti; Irene Jimenez; Birgit Geoerger; Pamela R Kearns; C Michel Zwaan; Francois Doz; Andre Baruchel; Josef Vormoor; Michela Casanova; Stefan M Pfister; Bruce Morland; Gilles Vassal Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Gregory T Armstrong; Toana Kawashima; Wendy Leisenring; Kayla Stratton; Marilyn Stovall; Melissa M Hudson; Charles A Sklar; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Theodore W Laetsch; Steven G DuBois; Leo Mascarenhas; Brian Turpin; Noah Federman; Catherine M Albert; Ramamoorthy Nagasubramanian; Jessica L Davis; Erin Rudzinski; Angela M Feraco; Brian B Tuch; Kevin T Ebata; Mark Reynolds; Steven Smith; Scott Cruickshank; Michael C Cox; Alberto S Pappo; Douglas S Hawkins Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 41.316