Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background There are limited data to predict which novel childhood cancer therapies are likely to be successful. To help rectify this, we sought to identify the factors that impact the success of phase II clinical trials for pediatric malignancies. Materials and Methods We examined the impact of 24 preclinical and trial design variables for their influence on 132 phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials. Success was determined by an objective assessment of patient response, with data analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Pearson's chi‐square test, and logistic regression models. Results Trials that evaluated patients with a single histological cancer type were more successful than those that assessed multiple different cancer types (68% vs. 47%, 27%, and 17% for 1, 2–3, 4–7, and 8+; p < .005). Trials on liquid or extracranial solid tumors were more successful than central nervous system or combined trials (70%, 60%, 38%, and 24%; p < .005), and trials of combination therapies were more successful than single agents (71% vs. 28%; p < .005). Trials that added therapies to standard treatment backbones were more successful than trials testing novel therapies alone or those that incorporated novel agents (p < .005), and trials initiated based on the results of adult studies were less likely to succeed (p < .05). For 61% of trials (80/132), we were unable to locate any relevant preclinical findings to support the trial. When preclinical studies were carried out (52/132), there was no evidence that the conduct of any preclinical experiments made the trial more likely to succeed (p < .005). Conclusion Phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials that examine a single cancer type and use combination therapies have the highest possibility of clinical success. Trials building upon a standard treatment regimen were also more successful. The conduct of preclinical experiments did not improve clinical success, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of the translational relevance of current preclinical testing paradigms. Implications for Practice To improve the clinical outcomes of phase II childhood cancer trials, this study identified factors impacting clinical success. These results have the potential to impact not only the design of future clinical trials but also the assessment of preclinical studies moving forward. This work found that trials on one histological cancer type and trials testing combination therapies had the highest possibility of success. Incorporation of novel therapies into standard treatment backbones led to higher success rates than testing novel therapies alone. This study found that most trials had no preclinical evidence to support initiation, and even when preclinical studies were available, they did not result in improved success.

Clinical development success rates and social value of pediatric Phase 1 trials in oncology

“…every drug has obtained registration and approval). These findings are similar to the results of a recent study which examined the impact of various variables for their influence on Phase 2 pediatric oncology clinical trials [19]. The authors found that Phase 2 trials initiated based on the results of adult trials were less likely to produce positive results.…”

Small-molecule screen reveals synergy of cell cycle checkpoint kinase inhibitors with DNA-damaging chemotherapies in medulloblastoma

“…For example, CDC25-mediated dephosphorylation of CDC2 (also known as CDK1) activates the CDC2 and cyclin B complex. In MB cells exposed to 4-HPC, phosphorylated CDC2 Tyr 15 increased, indicating CDC2/cyclin B complex inhibition and stalled G 2 /M progression (fig. S4, A to C, lanes 1 and 6).…”

“…S3B, top). In addition, phosphorylation of CDC2 Tyr 15 , a downstream target of CHK signaling, was significantly reduced by treatment with any of the CHK1/2 inhibitors (fig. S3B, lower).…”

“…In the past, new drugs have frequently failed in the clinic because accurate laboratory models did not exist, and these therapies were not appropriately tested in the preclinical setting (15). We reasoned that an efficient approach to facilitate the clinical translation of optimally effective drugs would be to first identify the "best-in-class" agent through rigorous preclinical testing of multiple different drugs targeting the same protein.…”

Translating palbociclib to the clinic for DIPG - What is truly achievable?

“…The authors did not report on toxicity,but noted that doses were delayed in some animals due to weight loss. The majority of early phase trials are unsuccessful and one reason is the misinterpretation of preclinical data and translatability of research findings [5]. We are concerned that the doses used in this study are not clinically achievable and thus are not able to be effectively translated to the clinic.…”