Relevance, Risks, and Benefits of Early-Phases Clinical Trials Participations for Patients With Hematological Malignancies From 2008 to 2023.
Phase 1
benefit risk assessment
clinical protocols
clinical trial
hematological malignancies
survival analysis
Journal
European journal of haematology
ISSN: 1600-0609
Titre abrégé: Eur J Haematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703985
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Sep 2024
21 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
28
08
2024
received:
11
05
2024
accepted:
09
09
2024
medline:
21
9
2024
pubmed:
21
9
2024
entrez:
21
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated. All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed. Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283). In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
A. Italiano, “Participation in Phase 1 Trials for Patients With Cancer,” Lancet 400, no. 10351 (2022): 473–475.
C. Chakiba, T. Grellety, C. Bellera, and A. Italiano, “Encouraging Trends in Modern Phase 1 Oncology Trials,” New England Journal of Medicine 378, no. 23 (2018): 2242–2243.
E. Horstmann, M. S. McCabe, L. Grochow, et al., “Risks and Benefits of Phase 1 Oncology Trials, 1991 Through 2002,” New England Journal of Medicine 352, no. 9 (2005): 895–904.
J. J. Adashek, P. M. LoRusso, D. S. Hong, and R. Kurzrock, “Phase I Trials as Valid Therapeutic Options for Patients With Cancer,” Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 16, no. 12 (2019): 773–778.
M. E. Hamaker, R. Stauder, and B. C. van Munster, “Exclusion of Older Patients From Ongoing Clinical Trials for Hematological Malignancies: An Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Registry,” Oncologist 19, no. 10 (2014): 1069–1075.
A. Mahipal and D. Nguyen, “Risks and Benefits of Phase 1 Clinical Trial Participation,” Cancer Control 21, no. 3 (2014): 193–199.
D. A. Berry, “Adaptive Clinical Trials in Oncology,” Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 9, no. 4 (2011): 199–207.
S. A. Koyfman, M. Agrawal, E. Garrett‐Mayer, et al., “Risks and Benefits Associated With Novel Phase 1 Oncology Trial Designs,” Cancer 110, no. 5 (2007): 1115–1124.
T. G. Roberts, Jr., B. H. Goulart, L. Squitieri, et al., “Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials,” Journal of the American Medical Association 292, no. 17 (2004): 2130–2140.
E. X. Chen and I. F. Tannock, “Risks and Benefits of Phase 1 Clinical Trials Evaluating New Anticancer Agents: A Case for More Innovation,” Journal of the American Medical Association 292, no. 17 (2004): 2150–2151.
M. Agrawal and E. J. Emanuel, “Ethics of Phase 1 Oncology Studies: Reexamining the Arguments and Data,” Journal of the American Medical Association 290, no. 8 (2003): 1075–1082.
E. Alouani, A. Gazzah, S. Mercier, et al., “Profile and Outcome of Cancer Patients Enrolled in Contemporary Phase I Trials,” European Journal of Cancer 188 (2023): 1–7.
H. T. Arkenau, D. Olmos, J. E. Ang, J. de Bono, I. Judson, and S. Kaye, “Clinical Outcome and Prognostic Factors for Patients Treated Within the Context of a Phase I Study: The Royal Marsden Hospital Experience,” British Journal of Cancer 98, no. 6 (2008): 1029–1033.
T. Bachelot, I. Ray‐Coquard, G. Catimel, et al., “Multivariable Analysis of Prognostic Factors for Toxicity and Survival for Patients Enrolled in Phase I Clinical Trials,” Annals of Oncology 11, no. 2 (2000): 151–156.
D. Chihara, R. Lin, C. R. Flowers, et al., “Early Drug Development in Solid Tumours: Analysis of National Cancer Institute‐Sponsored Phase 1 Trials,” Lancet 400, no. 10351 (2022): 512–521.
A. Italiano, C. Massard, R. Bahleda, et al., “Treatment Outcome and Survival in Participants of Phase I Oncology Trials Carried Out From 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy,” Annals of Oncology 19, no. 4 (2008): 787–792.
R. K. Paluri, P. Li, A. Anderson, et al., “First‐In‐Human Phase 1 Clinical Trials—A Single‐Center Experience in the Era of Modern Oncotherapeutics,” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (2020): 7935.
L. Benajiba, J. M. Michot, C. Baldini, et al., “Prognostic Factors and Outcome of Patients With Hematological Malignancies in Phase I Trials: The Gustave Roussy Scoring System,” Anti‐Cancer Drugs 28, no. 5 (2017): 540–545.
J. M. Michot, L. Benajiba, L. Faivre, et al., “Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for Relapsed or Refractory Lymphoma Patients in Phase I Clinical Trials,” Investigational New Drugs 36, no. 1 (2018): 62–74.
E. Barrenho, R. Halmai, M. Miraldo, et al., “Inequities in Cancer Drug Development in Terms of Unmet Medical Need,” Social Science & Medicine 302 (2022): 114953.
N. Boyd, J. E. Dancey, C. B. Gilks, and D. G. Huntsman, “Rare Cancers: A Sea of Opportunity,” Lancet Oncology 17, no. 2 (2016): e52–e61.
P. G. Casali, L. Licitra, A. M. Frezza, and A. Trama, “‘Rare cancers’: Not all Together in Clinical Studies!,” Annals of Oncology 33, no. 5 (2022): 463–465.
G. Nicotera, G. Sferrazza, A. Serafino, and P. Pierimarchi, “The Iterative Development of Medicines Through the European Medicine Agency's Adaptive Pathway Approach,” Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne) 6 (2019): 148.
J. J. Castillo, M. Vincent, and E. Justice, “Diagnosis and Management of Hyponatremia in Cancer Patients,” Oncologist 17, no. 6 (2012): 756–765.
R. H. Sterns, “Disorders of Plasma Sodium—Causes, Consequences, and Correction,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 1 (2015): 55–65.
E. M. Stein, C. D. DiNardo, D. A. Pollyea, et al., “Enasidenib in Mutant IDH2 Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia,” Blood 130, no. 6 (2017): 722–731.
C. D. DiNardo, E. M. Stein, S. de Botton, et al., “Durable Remissions With Ivosidenib in IDH1‐Mutated Relapsed or Refractory AML,” New England Journal of Medicine 378, no. 25 (2018): 2386–2398.
V. Levy, “Of Some Innovations in Clinical Trial Design in Hematology and Oncology,” Thérapie 77, no. 2 (2022): 191–195.
K. Escritt, M. Mann, A. Nelson, and E. Harrop, “Hope and Meaning‐Making in Phase 1 Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence on Patient‐Participant Experiences,” Trials 23, no. 1 (2022): 409.
M. P. Mackley, N. R. Fernandez, B. Fletcher, C. G. Woolcott, and C. V. Fernandez, “Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single‐Agent Anticancer Therapies,” JCO Precision Oncology 5 (2021): 17–26.
O. I. Martino, D. J. Ward, C. Packer, S. Simpson, and A. Stevens, “Innovation and the Burden of Disease: Retrospective Observational Study of New and Emerging Health Technologies Reported by the EuroScan Network From 2000 to 2009,” Value in Health 15, no. 2 (2012): 376–380.
G. B. D. A. Collaborators, “The Burden and Trend of Diseases and Their Risk Factors in Australia, 1990‐2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019,” Lancet Public Health 8, no. 8 (2023): e585–e599.
K. Izutsu, S. Makita, K. Nosaka, et al., “An Open‐Label, Single‐Arm Phase 2 Trial of Valemetostat for Relapsed or Refractory Adult T‐Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma,” Blood 141, no. 10 (2023): 1159–1168.
O. A. O'Connor, B. Pro, L. Pinter‐Brown, et al., “Pralatrexate in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Peripheral T‐Cell Lymphoma: Results From the Pivotal PROPEL Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 29, no. 9 (2011): 1182–1189.
B. Coiffier, B. Pro, H. M. Prince, et al., “Results From a Pivotal, Open‐Label, Phase II Study of Romidepsin in Relapsed or Refractory Peripheral T‐Cell Lymphoma After Prior Systemic Therapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, no. 6 (2012): 631–636.
O. A. O'Connor, S. Horwitz, T. Masszi, et al., “Belinostat in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Peripheral T‐Cell Lymphoma: Results of the Pivotal Phase II BELIEF (CLN‐19) Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 33, no. 23 (2015): 2492–2499.