Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group (original) (raw)
Related papers
Trials, 2011
Background: Historically controlled studies are commonly undertaken in paediatric oncology, despite their potential biases. Our aim was to compare the outcome of the control group in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in paediatric oncology with those anticipated in the sample size calculations in the protocols. Our rationale was that, had these RCTs been performed as historical control studies instead, the available outcome data used to calculate the sample size in the RCT would have been used as the historical control outcome data. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken for published paediatric oncology RCTs using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database from its inception up to July 2013. Data on sample size assumptions and observed outcomes (timetoevent and proportions) were extracted to calculate differences between randomised and historical control outcomes, and a one-sample t-test was employed to assess whether the difference between anticipated and observed control groups differed from zero. Results: Forty-eight randomised questions were included. The median year of publication was 2005, and the range was from 1976 to 2010. There were 31 superiority and 11 equivalence/noninferiority randomised questions with time-to-event outcomes. The median absolute difference between observed and anticipated control outcomes was 5.0% (range: −23 to +34), and the mean difference was 3.8% (95% CI: +0.57 to +7.0; P = 0.022). Conclusions: Because the observed control group (that is, standard treatment arm) in RCTs performed better than anticipated, we found that historically controlled studies that used similar assumptions for the standard treatment were likely to overestimate the benefit of new treatments, potentially leading to children with cancer being given ineffective therapy that may have additional toxicity.
Clinical Trials in Paediatric Oncology
Thérapie, 2003
Childhood and adolescent cancers are rare diseases. Despite the progress in treatment (more than two-thirds of all cases are cured), cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease in children older than 1 year. Access to new drugs that are more efficacious or better tolerated is therefore an important public health priority. The objective of our round table was thus to take inventory of the situation and to propose recommendations aimed at facilitating coordinated, rational and more rapid access to new treatments. The active participation of paediatric oncologists, parents, pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities proved not only necessary but very constructive. Pharmaceutical companies have developed very few new anticancer agents for children during the past 10 years. The round table identified current trends that appear propitious: the mobilisation of parents and patients' associations; European initiatives to encourage companies to assess drugs in children; regulatory initiatives to guide drug development; and the existence of structured clinical research networks in paediatric oncology, including for the development of early treatment. The round table recommends the following measures to improve access to new treatments for children and adolescents with cancer: 1. Conduct preclinical paediatric evaluation of all anticancer agents that begin the development process for adults (research and validation of treatment targets; pharmacological evaluation in relevant experimental models) to help choose the agents to study in children. 2. Initiate paediatric clinical development before the first application for authorisation for adults is filed, when sufficient safety and tolerability data are available, that is, after the phase I trials in adults and optimally during the phase II trials. 3. Optimise paediatric clinical evaluation by defining development plans early and by reducing the duration of studies (enlargement of the early treatment research network to ensure adequate recruitment; new evaluation methods; better extrapolation of pharmacological data from adults to children for dose-finding). 4. Improve information to and participation of parents and patients in clinical research for new treatments. The prerequisite for the success of this project became rapidly clear to all the round-table participants: cooperation and partnership between specialists and other scientists from academia, parent associations, pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities. Only with such cooperation can progress in treatment occur and new hopes for recovery be fulfilled.
Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials
The Oncologist
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. The Oncologist 2019;24:e765-e774 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.
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2016
Dose-finding trials are fundamental to develop novel drugs for children and adolescents with advanced cancer. It is crucial to maximise individual benefit, whilst ensuring adequate assessment of key study end-points. We assessed prognostic factors of survival in paediatric phase I trials, including two predictive scores validated in adult oncology: the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) scores. Data of patients with solid tumours aged <18 years at enrolment in their first dose-finding trial between 2000 and 2014 at eight centres of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer European consortium were collected. Survival distributions were compared using log-rank test and Cox regression analyses. Overall, 248 patients were evaluated: median age, 11.2 years (range 1.0-17.9); 46% had central nervous system (CNS) tumours and 54% extra-CNS tumours. Complete responses were observed in 2.1%, partial responses in 7.2% and stable disease in 25.9%. ...
The role of the ‘innovative therapies for children with cancer’ (ITCC) European consortium
Cancer Treatment Reviews, 2010
Overall survival from childhood malignancies has dramatically improved, with survival rates now reaching over 70%. Nevertheless, some types of childhood cancer remain a difficult challenge, and for those who survive the burden of treatment can be considerable. The current paradigm for new cancer therapies is to increase our knowledge of the molecular basis of carcinogenesis, followed by the development of cancer-cell specific therapies. Historically, drug development was focused on adult cancers, and the potential efficacy in childhood malignancies was not considered. Recently, a European academic consortium was established, namely 'innovative therapies for children with cancer' (ITCC), to address this unmet need. This initiative is focused on the evaluation of novel agents in pediatric cancer pre-clinical models, and early clinical development of promising new drugs. The number of pediatric patients eligible to participate in such trials is limited, and accurate pre-clinical evaluation may provide evidence-based prioritization for clinical development. Until recently, clinical development of new drugs in childhood cancer was restricted by the limited accessibility of such agents. Recent changes in EU legislation oblige pharmaceutical companies to provide pediatric clinical data for all new drugs relevant to children, including anti-cancer drugs. Pediatric consortiums like ITCC have established networks of expertise with the specific aim of evaluating new drugs for the treatment of childhood cancers. Through proper evaluation in collaborative clinical trials we will learn how best to use these new therapeutic approaches and improve the survival rates and reduce toxicity for children with cancer.
PLoS medicine, 2018
Pediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials. Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as "small sample size, non‑randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested." We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meetin...
Pediatric blood & cancer, 2016
RECIST guidelines constitute the reference for radiological response assessment in most paediatric trials of anticancer agents. However, these criteria have not been validated in children. We evaluated the outcomes and patterns of progression of children/adolescents enrolled in phase I trials in two paediatric drug development units. Patients aged ≤21 assessed with RECIST (v1.0 or v1.1) were eligible. Clinico-radiological data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U and log-rank tests to correlate response categories and sum of longest diameters (SLD) with time-to-event variables and overall survival (OS). Sixty-one patients (71 enrolments) were evaluated; median age: 12.7 years (range, 3.1-20.9). Overall, 7% achieved complete/partial response (n = 5) and 31% disease stabilisation (n = 22). Median (95% CI) OS (in months) was 29.1 (27.6-30.6) with complete/partial response, 8.9 (2.0-15.8) with stable disease and 2.8 (2.3-3.3) with disease progression (P < 0.001); 32.6% patients with me...
BMC cancer, 2014
There is a lack of standardized definition for treatment-related mortality (TRM), which represents an important endpoint in cancer. Our objective was to describe TRM definitions used in studies of children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors. We conducted a systematic review of studies enrolling children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors in which an anti-cancer intervention was randomized, or all study designs in which TRM was a primary or secondary outcome. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 1980 to June 2013. Two reviewers evaluated study eligibility and abstracted data. In total, 67 studies were included and consisted of 62 randomized therapeutic trials and 5 TRM studies. None of the studies (0/67) provided a definition for TRM. Only one randomized trial of rhabdomyosarcoma provided a definition of early death. We were unable to identify any TRM definitions use...