Patient Selection for Oncology Phase I Trials: A Multi-Institutional Study of Prognostic Factors

The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 02/2012; 30(9):996-1004. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.5074
Source: PubMed


The appropriate selection of patients for early clinical trials presents a major challenge. Previous analyses focusing on this problem were limited by small size and by interpractice heterogeneity. This study aims to define prognostic factors to guide risk-benefit assessments by using a large patient database from multiple phase I trials.
Data were collected from 2,182 eligible patients treated in phase I trials between 2005 and 2007 in 14 European institutions. We derived and validated independent prognostic factors for 90-day mortality by using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
The 90-day mortality was 16.5% with a drug-related death rate of 0.4%. Trial discontinuation within 3 weeks occurred in 14% of patients primarily because of disease progression. Eight different prognostic variables for 90-day mortality were validated: performance status (PS), albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, number of metastatic sites, clinical tumor growth rate, lymphocytes, and WBC. Two different models of prognostic scores for 90-day mortality were generated by using these factors, including or excluding PS; both achieved specificities of more than 85% and sensitivities of approximately 50% when using a score cutoff of 5 or higher. These models were not superior to the previously published Royal Marsden Hospital score in their ability to predict 90-day mortality.
Patient selection using any of these prognostic scores will reduce non-drug-related 90-day mortality among patients enrolled in phase I trials by 50%. However, this can be achieved only by an overall reduction in recruitment to phase I studies of 20%, more than half of whom would in fact have survived beyond 90 days.

Download full-text


Available from: Elisa Gallerani, Feb 10, 2014
15 Reads
  • Source
    • "The most common tumour primary types were ovarian/peritoneal (n ¼ 22, 24%), colorectal (n ¼ 19, 20%), breast (n ¼ 7, 8%) and bladder (n ¼ 6, 76%); 92% of patients had metastatic disease, most commonly to the lungs (45%) and lymph nodes (41%). Two patients had previously treated stable brain metastases; 98% had ECOG-PS 0–1, and 80% had a favourable Royal Marsden Hospital Prognostic Index (RMH-PI; Olmos et al, 2012). Patients had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy and 33% had been exposed to 3 or more lines of treatment. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Predictive biomarker development is a key challenge for novel cancer therapeutics. We explored the feasibility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to validate exploratory genomic biomarkers that impact phase I trial selection. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 158 patients with advanced solid tumours referred for phase I clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Hospital (October 2012 to March 2013). After fresh and/or archived tumour tissue were obtained, 93 patients remained candidates for phase I trials. Results from tumour sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq were cross-validated in 27 out of 93 patients on the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (IT-PGM) blinded to results. MiSeq validation with Sequenom MassARRAY OncoCarta 1.0 (Sequenom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was performed in a separate cohort. Results: We found 97% concordance of mutation calls by MiSeq and IT-PGM at a variant allele frequency ⩾13% and ⩾500 × depth coverage, and 91% concordance between MiSeq and Sequenom. Common 'actionable' mutations involved deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) repair (51%), RAS-RAF-MEK (35%), Wnt (26%), and PI3K-AKT-mTOR (24%) signalling. Out of 53, 29 (55%) patients participating in phase I trials were recommended based on identified actionable mutations. Conclusions: Targeted high-coverage NGS panels are a highly feasible single-centre technology well-suited to cross-platform validation, enrichment of trials with molecularly defined populations and hypothesis testing early in drug development.
    British Journal of Cancer 07/2014; 111(5). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.350 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In such cases, the treatment decision is based on the individual patient’s clinical context, physician’s experience and clinical judgment, local practice guidelines and the patient’s medical and treatment history. While the overall rate of success for cancer drug treatment has been estimated at 35% (Jackson, 2009), treatment for these patients is less effective, e.g., the response rate to therapy in patients meeting the inclusion criteria for early clinical studies is around 10% (Olmos et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients in whom the standard of care has failed or who have uncommon tumors for which no standard of care exists are often treated with drugs selected based on the physician's best guess. The rate of success for this method is generally low. With the advent of fast, affordable tumor profiling technologies, and a growth in the understanding of predictive biomarkers, it is now possible to identify drugs potentially associated with clinical benefit for such patients. We present the Caris approach to evidence-based tumor profiling and two patients with advanced ovarian and prostate cancer in whom standard of care had failed and tumor profiling identified an effective treatment schedule. To establish Caris Molecular Intelligence(TM) (CMI), over 120,000 clinical publications were screened and graded to characterize the predictive value of biomarkers that form the panel of tests. CMI includes multiple technologies to measure changes in proteins, ribonucleic acid, and deoxyribonucleic acid and proprietary software that matches the test results with the published evidence. The CMI results enable physicians to select drugs that are more likely to benefit the patients, avoid drugs that are not likely to work, and find treatment options that otherwise would not be considered. Worldwide, over 60,000 cancer patients have undergone evidence-based tumor profiling with CMI. In the cases reported in this article, CMI identified treatments that would not have been routinely used in the respective clinical setting. The clinical outcomes observed help to illustrate the utility of this approach.
    Frontiers in Pharmacology 04/2014; 5:76. DOI:10.3389/fphar.2014.00076 · 3.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The validation set comprised 324 patients treated in EORTC phase I cancer trials between 2000 and 2009. In this database, the same variables were available (Olmos et al, 2012). Eighteen patients were excluded because they were lost to follow-up before the 90 days, and 134 patients were excluded because of missing values for at least one parameter used in the one or other of the models (Table 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Selecting patients with ‘sufficient life expectancy' for Phase I oncology trials remains challenging. The Royal Marsden Hospital Score (RMS) previously identified high-risk patients as those with ⩾2 of the following: albumin <35 g l−1; LDH > upper limit of normal; >2 metastatic sites. This study developed an alternative prognostic model, and compared its performance with that of the RMS. Methods: The primary end point was the 90-day mortality rate. The new model was developed from the same database as RMS, but it used Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID). The ROC characteristics of both methods were then validated in an independent database of 324 patients enrolled in European Organization on Research and Treatment of Cancer Phase I trials of cytotoxic agents between 2000 and 2009. Results: The CHAID method identified high-risk patients as those with albumin <33 g l−1 or ⩾33 g l−1, but platelet counts ⩾400.000 mm−3. In the validation data set, the rates of correctly classified patients were 0.79 vs 0.67 for the CHAID model and RMS, respectively. The negative predictive values (NPV) were similar for the CHAID model and RMS. Conclusion: The CHAID model and RMS provided a similarly high level of NPV, but the CHAID model gave a better accuracy in the validation set. Both CHAID model and RMS may improve the screening process in phase I trials.
    British Journal of Cancer 08/2012; 107(7):1025-30. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2012.371 · 4.84 Impact Factor
Show more