Canada’s vast geography, and centralized delivery of cancer care and clinical trials create barriers for trial participation for patients in remote and rural settings. The development and implementation of a framework that enables safe and regulatory compliant trial participation through local healthcare providers would benefit Canadian patients, clinicians, trial sponsors and the health care system. To address this issue, representatives of Canada’s cancer clinical trial community met to identify key challenges and develop recommendations for remote patient participation in trials. A structured literature review identified remote/rural trial delivery models. A panel of expert stakeholders reviewed the models and participated in a workshop to assess health system readiness, identify needed processes, tools and mechanisms, and develop recommendations for a Canadian framework for decentralized clinical trial conduct. The Canadian Remote Access Framework for clinical Trials (CRAFT) represents a risk-based approach used by site investigators to delegate responsibilities for a given trial to satellite health centres within a hub-and-spoke “trial cluster”. The Framework includes specific recommendations to ensure research experience, capacity, regulatory compliance and patient safety. Canada’s cancer care and telemedicine systems can be leveraged to enable broader access to clinical trials for patients who are geographically remote from cancer centres. CRAFT’s risk-based framework is based on other successful models of remote trial patient management and is in the pilot implementation phase in Canada.

Innovative therapeutic approaches are needed to alleviate the burden of life-limiting, rare, and chronic conditions affecting children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA). This includes a need for improved access to both clinical research and to non-approved or off-label therapies, together with, ultimately, more therapies achieving regulatory approval in Canada. The single patient study (SPS), also known as an open label individual patient (OLIP) study, was introduced by Health Canada to open access to non-marketed drugs where a clinical trial is not readily available, but the drug is considered too investigational to be managed on a standard Special Access Program. SPS is designed for patients who have a serious or life-threatening condition and have exhausted available treatment options. Our report summarizes this relatively new development in the Canadian regulatory environment and highlights the opportunities and challenges as identified by regulators, pharmaceutical representatives, academic researchers, and patient/parent advocates.

Oral metronomic topotecan represents a novel approach to chemotherapy delivery which, in preclinical models, may work synergistically with pazopanib in targeting angiogenesis. A phase I and pharmacokinetic (PK) study of this combination was performed in children with relapsed/refractory solid tumors. Oral topotecan and pazopanib were each administered daily without interruption in 28-day cycles at five dose levels (0.12 to 0.3 mg/m2 topotecan and 125 to 160 mg/m2 pazopanib powder for oral suspension (PfOS)), with dose escalation in accordance with the rolling-six design. PK studies were performed on day 1 and at steady state. Thirty patients were enrolled, with 26 evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), with median age 12 years (3–20). Toxicities were generally mild; the most common grade 3/4 adverse events related to protocol therapy were neutropenia (18%), thrombocytopenia (11%), lymphopenia (11%), AST elevation (11%), and lipase elevation (11%). Only two cycle 1 DLTs were observed on study, both at the 0.3/160 mg/m2 dose level comprising persistent grade 3 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 ALT elevation. No AEs experienced beyond cycle 1 required treatment discontinuation. The best response was stable disease in 10/25 patients (40%) for a median duration of 6.4 (1.7–45.1) months. The combination of oral metronomic topotecan and pazopanib is safe and tolerable in pediatric patients with solid tumors, with a recommended phase 2 dose of 0.22 mg/m2 topotecan and 160 mg/m2 pazopanib. No objective responses were observed in this heavily pre-treated patient population, although 40% did achieve stable disease for a median of 6 months. While this combination is likely of limited benefit for relapsed disease, it may play a role in the maintenance setting.