Recent Status of Phase I Clinical Trials for Brain Tumors: A Regulatory Science Study of Exploratory Efficacy Endpoints.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00644-3
Shinya Watanabe, Takahiro Nonaka, Makoto Maeda, Masanobu Yamada, Narushi Sugii, Koichi Hashimoto, Shingo Takano, Tomoyoshi Koyanagi, Yoshihiro Arakawa, Eiichi Ishikawa
{"title":"Recent Status of Phase I Clinical Trials for Brain Tumors: A Regulatory Science Study of Exploratory Efficacy Endpoints.","authors":"Shinya Watanabe, Takahiro Nonaka, Makoto Maeda, Masanobu Yamada, Narushi Sugii, Koichi Hashimoto, Shingo Takano, Tomoyoshi Koyanagi, Yoshihiro Arakawa, Eiichi Ishikawa","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00644-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appropriate exploratory efficacy data from Phase I trials are vital for subsequent phases. Owing to the uniqueness of brain tumors (BTs), use of different strategies to evaluate efficacy is warranted. We studied exploratory efficacy evaluation in Phase I trials involving BTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Clarivate's Cortellis<sup>™</sup>, 42 Phase I trials of BT interventions conducted from 2020 to 2022 were analyzed for efficacy endpoints, which were set as primary endpoints (PEs) or secondary endpoints (SEs). Additionally, these metrics were compared in two subgroups: trials including only BTs (Group-A) and those including BTs among mixed solid tumors (Group-B).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Selected studies included a median of 1.5 PEs (range, 1-6) and 5 SEs (range, 0-19). Efficacy endpoints were included as PEs and SEs in 2 (5%) and 31 (78%) trials, respectively. Among the latter 31 trials that included 94 efficacy endpoints, 24, 22, 20, 9, and 8 reflected overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and disease control rate (DCR), respectively. ORR for BT was determined using various methods; however, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was used less frequently in Group-A than in Group-B (p = 0.0039).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recent Phase I trials included efficacy endpoints as SEs, with ORR, PFS, or OS included in ~ 50% trials and DOR or DCR in ~ 25%. No established criteria exist for imaging evaluation of BTs. Phase I trials involving mixed solid tumor cohorts revealed challenges in designing methods to assess the exploratory efficacy of BTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":"655-662"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11169007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00644-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Appropriate exploratory efficacy data from Phase I trials are vital for subsequent phases. Owing to the uniqueness of brain tumors (BTs), use of different strategies to evaluate efficacy is warranted. We studied exploratory efficacy evaluation in Phase I trials involving BTs.

Methods: Using Clarivate's Cortellis, 42 Phase I trials of BT interventions conducted from 2020 to 2022 were analyzed for efficacy endpoints, which were set as primary endpoints (PEs) or secondary endpoints (SEs). Additionally, these metrics were compared in two subgroups: trials including only BTs (Group-A) and those including BTs among mixed solid tumors (Group-B).

Results: Selected studies included a median of 1.5 PEs (range, 1-6) and 5 SEs (range, 0-19). Efficacy endpoints were included as PEs and SEs in 2 (5%) and 31 (78%) trials, respectively. Among the latter 31 trials that included 94 efficacy endpoints, 24, 22, 20, 9, and 8 reflected overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and disease control rate (DCR), respectively. ORR for BT was determined using various methods; however, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was used less frequently in Group-A than in Group-B (p = 0.0039).

Conclusions: Recent Phase I trials included efficacy endpoints as SEs, with ORR, PFS, or OS included in ~ 50% trials and DOR or DCR in ~ 25%. No established criteria exist for imaging evaluation of BTs. Phase I trials involving mixed solid tumor cohorts revealed challenges in designing methods to assess the exploratory efficacy of BTs.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑肿瘤 I 期临床试验的近况:探索性疗效终点的监管科学研究》。
背景:I 期试验中适当的探索性疗效数据对后续阶段至关重要。由于脑肿瘤(BT)的特殊性,有必要采用不同的疗效评估策略。我们对涉及脑肿瘤的 I 期试验中的探索性疗效评估进行了研究:使用 Clarivate 的 Cortellis™,对 2020 年至 2022 年进行的 42 项 BT 干预的 I 期试验的疗效终点进行了分析,这些终点被设定为主要终点(PE)或次要终点(SE)。此外,这些指标还在两个分组中进行了比较:仅包括BTs的试验(A组)和包括混合实体瘤BTs的试验(B组):所选研究包括 1.5 个 PE(范围为 1-6)和 5 个 SE(范围为 0-19)。分别有 2 项(5%)和 31 项(78%)试验将疗效终点列为 PE 和 SE。在后 31 项包含 94 个疗效终点的试验中,分别有 24、22、20、9 和 8 项试验反映了总反应率 (ORR)、无进展生存期 (PFS)、总生存期 (OS)、反应持续时间 (DOR) 和疾病控制率 (DCR)。BT的总反应率是通过各种方法确定的;然而,A组比B组更少使用实体瘤反应评估标准(RECIST)(P = 0.0039):最近的 I 期试验将疗效终点作为 SE,其中约 50% 的试验包括 ORR、PFS 或 OS,约 25% 的试验包括 DOR 或 DCR。对于 BT 的成像评估还没有既定的标准。涉及混合实体瘤队列的 I 期试验揭示了设计 BT 探索性疗效评估方法所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Borrowing Methods for Incorporating Historical Data in Single-Arm Phase II Clinical Trials. Testing the Feasibility of a Digital Point of Care Solution for the Trusted Near Real-Time Bidirectional Exchange of Novel and Informative Adverse Event Information. Better Medicines for Children: Lessons Learnt and Share Learnings at the EFGCP Annual Paediatric Conferences. An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database for MAGnetic Expansion Control Spinal Rods. Principles for Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Ceramic Dental Implants in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1