Recruitment, outcomes, and toxicity trends in phase I oncology trials: Six-year experience in a large institution.
immunotherapy
phase one trials
response
Journal
Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)
ISSN: 2573-8348
Titre abrégé: Cancer Rep (Hoboken)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101747728
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
16
05
2021
received:
07
04
2021
accepted:
18
05
2021
pubmed:
11
7
2021
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
10
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With the rapid influx of novel anti-cancer agents, phase I clinical trials in oncology are evolving. Historically, response rates on early phase trials have been modest with the clinical benefit and ethics of enrolment debated. However, there is a paucity of real-world data in this setting. To better understand the changing landscape of phase I oncology trials, we performed a retrospective review at our institution to examine patient and trial characteristics, screening outcomes, and treatment outcomes. We analyzed all consecutive adult patients with advanced solid organ malignancies who were screened across phase I trials from January 2013 to December 2018 at a single institution. During this period, 242 patients were assessed for 28 different trials. Median age was 64 years (range 30-89) with an equal sex distribution. Among 257 screening visits, the overall screen failure rate was 18%, resulting in 212 patients being enrolled onto a study. Twenty-six trials (93%) involved immunotherapeutic agents or molecular targeted agents either alone or in combination, with only two trials of cytotoxic agents (7%). Twenty-two (13.4%) of the 209 treated patients experienced a total of 33 grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. There was one treatment-related death (0.5%). Of 190 response-evaluable patients, 7 (4%) had a complete response, 34 (18%) a partial response, and 59 (31%) experienced stable disease for a disease control rate of 53%. The median overall survival for our cohort was 8.0 (95% CI: 6.8-9.2) months. The profile of phase I trials at our institution are consistent with the changing early drug development landscape. Response rates and overall survival in our cohort are superior to historically reported rates and comparable to contemporaneous studies. Severe treatment-related toxicity was relatively uncommon, and treatment-related mortality was rare.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
With the rapid influx of novel anti-cancer agents, phase I clinical trials in oncology are evolving. Historically, response rates on early phase trials have been modest with the clinical benefit and ethics of enrolment debated. However, there is a paucity of real-world data in this setting.
AIM
To better understand the changing landscape of phase I oncology trials, we performed a retrospective review at our institution to examine patient and trial characteristics, screening outcomes, and treatment outcomes.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We analyzed all consecutive adult patients with advanced solid organ malignancies who were screened across phase I trials from January 2013 to December 2018 at a single institution. During this period, 242 patients were assessed for 28 different trials. Median age was 64 years (range 30-89) with an equal sex distribution. Among 257 screening visits, the overall screen failure rate was 18%, resulting in 212 patients being enrolled onto a study. Twenty-six trials (93%) involved immunotherapeutic agents or molecular targeted agents either alone or in combination, with only two trials of cytotoxic agents (7%). Twenty-two (13.4%) of the 209 treated patients experienced a total of 33 grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. There was one treatment-related death (0.5%). Of 190 response-evaluable patients, 7 (4%) had a complete response, 34 (18%) a partial response, and 59 (31%) experienced stable disease for a disease control rate of 53%. The median overall survival for our cohort was 8.0 (95% CI: 6.8-9.2) months.
CONCLUSION
The profile of phase I trials at our institution are consistent with the changing early drug development landscape. Response rates and overall survival in our cohort are superior to historically reported rates and comparable to contemporaneous studies. Severe treatment-related toxicity was relatively uncommon, and treatment-related mortality was rare.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34245134
doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1465
pmc: PMC8842700
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1465Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35(2):135-138
pubmed: 27646944
JAMA. 2017 Dec 5;318(21):2137-2138
pubmed: 29209711
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun 20;33(18):2004-12
pubmed: 25897158
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar;70(2):125-137
pubmed: 32031692
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 1;23(19):5666-5670
pubmed: 28235882
Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Jan;32(1):40-51
pubmed: 24406927
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):956-965
pubmed: 27247226
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Aug 15;19(16):4297-304
pubmed: 23719260
Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2022 Feb;5(2):e1465
pubmed: 34245134
Cancer. 2009 Mar 1;115(5):1091-9
pubmed: 19165805
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Dec;16(12):773-778
pubmed: 31477881
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jan;26(1):7-9
pubmed: 25361990
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2020 Feb;85(2):449-459
pubmed: 31745590
Invest New Drugs. 1991 Feb;9(1):115-22
pubmed: 1827432
J Mol Med (Berl). 2018 Jan;96(1):31-38
pubmed: 29177698
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35(2):139-140
pubmed: 27893329
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jun;17(6):717-726
pubmed: 27157491
Invest New Drugs. 2018 Oct;36(5):933-938
pubmed: 29234946
Lancet. 2016 May 7;387(10031):1909-20
pubmed: 26952546
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Aug 22;6(1):81
pubmed: 30134959
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 3;352(9):895-904
pubmed: 15745980
N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 27;370(13):1189-97
pubmed: 24670165
Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Apr;32(4):323-30
pubmed: 24714478
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 28;366(26):2443-54
pubmed: 22658127
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;28(6):1388-1398
pubmed: 30052728
Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):1968-1973
pubmed: 22408187
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):980-981
pubmed: 32496530
Ann Oncol. 1990;1(3):175-81
pubmed: 2148104
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Feb;18(3):684-92
pubmed: 10653884
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 1;24(19):2987-90
pubmed: 16809725
Invest New Drugs. 2013 Jun;31(3):774-9
pubmed: 23135779
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 20;30(21):2684-90
pubmed: 22689801
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 07;378(23):2242-2243
pubmed: 29874526
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb;13(2):106-17
pubmed: 26552953
Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):787-92
pubmed: 18042834
Br J Cancer. 2003 Oct 6;89(7):1166-71
pubmed: 14520440
Br J Cancer. 2008 Mar 25;98(6):1029-33
pubmed: 18349817