Article

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: 17.88). 02/2012; 30(9):996-1004. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.5074
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Full-text

Available from: Elisa Gallerani, Feb 10, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • Source
    [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 advance online publication 1 July 2014. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.350 www.bjcancer.com.
    British Journal of Cancer 07/2014; DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.350 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer often have a poor performance status, which is considered a relative contraindication to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We investigated outcomes in hospitalized solid tumour oncology patients who received palliative chemotherapy (PCT). Methods With ethics approval, we performed a single-institution chart review of all patients hospitalized on our oncology unit who received PCT between April 2008 and January 2010. Patient demographics, reasons for admission, cancer type, prior therapy, and administered chemotherapy were recorded. The primary endpoint was median survival from date of inpatient chemotherapy until death or last known follow up. We also investigated place of discharge and whether patients received additional therapy. Results During the study period, 199 inpatients received PCT. Median age was 61 years; 59% of the patients were women. Most had been admitted with dyspnea (31%) or pain (29%) as the dominant symptom. Common cancers represented were breast (23%), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC, 22%), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 16%), and colorectal cancer (9%). Most patients (67%) were receiving first-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival duration was 4.5 months, and the 6-month survival rate was 41%. The longest and shortest survivals were seen in the SCLC and NSCLC groups (7.3 and 2.5 months respectively). Factors significantly associated with shorter survival were baseline hypoalbuminemia and therapy beyond the first line. In this cohort, 77% of patients were discharged home, and 72% received further chemotherapy. Conclusions Despite a short median survival, many patients are well enough to be discharged home and to receive further chemotherapy. The development of risk models to predict a higher chance of efficacy will have practical clinical utility.
    08/2014; 21(4):187-92. DOI:10.3747/co.21.1989