Rubinstein, Larry

Abstract Oncology has undergone major changes in systemic treatment options, from chemotherapy to antiangiogenic agents to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to immunotherapy. Historically, a therapeutic agent is tested in separate trials as monotherapy or combined with investigational or approved agents/modalities, to determine antitumor activity in each histology based on the premise that each histology responds differently to the same treatment. This paradigm is time consuming and may or may not make use of molecular characterization to test each agent in each histology. However, with the expansion of biologic understanding and development of various biomarkers, e.g., estrogen receptor and Her 2 amplification, we move beyond the basic paradigm of general histology to one in which treatment is based upon molecular characteristics of the tumor. Examples of recent discoveries from this more modern paradigm are (1) multiple histologies sharing a common molecular profile and (2) a subset within a single histology having a given molecular characteristic. Various agents have been tested singularly in terms of molecular aberrations and histology, e.g., ALK inhibitors and NSCLC. However, with the rapid increase in the number of targeted agents in development, more facile and efficient clinical trial designs are needed. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) collaborated in designing the Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial (NCI-MATCH or EAY131), the first large-scale signal-finding precision medicine oncology trial in the United States to incorporate centralized NGS testing to direct patients to parallel (nonrandomized) phase II treatment arms under a master protocol. The trial is being conducted by the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), with ECOG-ACRIN leading the trial. More than 100 investigators from across the NCTN adult cancer-oriented member groups (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN, NRG Oncology, and SWOG) have worked collaboratively to design and lead what is currently 30 treatment arms (subprotocols), with more arms in development. Wide-scale NCTN investigator involvement ensures use of the latest knowledge to define the actionable mutations required for eligibility and to make evidence-based selections of experimental agents. In NCI-MATCH, patients are assigned treatment based on the genomic alterations found in their tumors through genomic sequencing and other tests at the time of initial enrollment for screening. Unlike other phase II trials, each arm is open to advanced solid tumors, lymphomas, or myeloma that share a set of molecular aberrations, not restricted to a single histology. This strategy accommodates and encourages enrollment of rare tumors for which there are often no standard treatments and limited clinical trial options. NCI-MATCH has 10-30 concurrent treatment arms available to patients at any given time, testing both investigational agents and FDA-approved drugs for new indications. Most treatment arms have an enrollment goal of 35 patients, with some arms that address tumor gene variants of higher prevalence expanded to 70 patients. Together, the NCTN and NCI Community Oncology Research Program provide infrastructure for many clinical sites (>1100) to participate, providing ready access to physicians and patients; screening enrollment has occurred in all 50 states in the U.S, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A specific assay was developed for the trial (the MATCH assay), and a laboratory network was organized to rapidly process the tissue and efficiently interrogate for mutations. NCI and ECOG-ACRIN statisticians developed the analysis plan and are currently maintaining data that are closely monitored by safety experts for any adverse event signals. Lastly, a bioinformatics system (MATCHbox) was developed to coordinate molecular data collection and support rule-based decision-making based on those data. Because genomics in oncology is rapidly expanding and evolving, NCI-MATCH required flexibility to accommodate brisker screening accrual than anticipated, and adaptation to constantly emerging information about new drugs and new molecular alterations. The goal to sequence the tumors of 6,000 patients with NCI funding was achieved two years ahead of schedule, but that cohort was not sufficient to fill all the arms—in particular, those aimed at the most rarely occurring tumor gene aberrations. Currently, the goal for the trial is to complete the open treatment arms by allowing for designated commercial and academic laboratories to notify ordering physicians when genomic tests they ordered to guide clinical care indicate a potential eligibility to a NCI-MATCH arm with a rare variant and allow for enrollment to the relevant treatment subprotocol if the patient meets all subprotocol eligibility criteria. The tissue confirmation of the molecular abnormality on the MATCH assay by the central laboratories will be accomplished after subprotocol enrollment so that patient treatment will not be delayed for confirmation. A demonstration project is now under way to test the applicability of this approach and potentially develop common standards for future use. With tumor sequencing becoming a more and more common practice in oncology, this may allow patients with mutations of low prevalence to have investigational treatment options. NCI-MATCH is expanding its panel and definition of actionable mutations to allow greater flexibility to incorporate in real time new mutations supported with adequate levels of evidence. The valuable genomic and clinical outcome data collected in the trial will permit evaluation of efficacy of targeting certain actionable mutations with a specific agent. In addition, biospecimens are being collected to build a rich resource for conducting auxiliary biology studies that may answer questions about prevalence of mutations in the metastatic setting, prevalence of mutations in rare histologies, and resistance mechanisms of various targeted therapy. At this meeting, two abstracts will provide an overall trial update and present information about the prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the centrally screened population. Citation Format: Alice P. Chen, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Lyndsay Harris, Barbara A. Conley, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mickey Williams, Robert J. Gray, Shuli Li, Lisa M. McShane, Lawrence V. Rubinstein, Susanna I. Lee, Shaji Kumar, Edith P. Mitchell, James A. Zwiebel, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Lalitha K. Shankar, Paolo F. Caimi, Carlos L. Arteaga, A John Iafrate, Jeffrey Sklar, Richard F. Little, Keith T. Flaherty. NCI-MATCH: A new paradigm in the era of genomic oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PL03-01.

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.

AbstractWe compiled and analyzed a database of cooperative group trials in advanced pancreatic cancer to develop historical benchmarks for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Such benchmarks are essential for evaluating new therapies in a single-arm setting. The analysis included patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving regimens that included gemcitabine, between 1995 and 2005. Prognostic baseline factors were selected by their significance in Cox regression analysis. Outlier trial arms were identified by comparing individual 6-month OS and PFS rates against the entire group. The dataset selected for the generation of OS and PFS benchmarks was then tested for intertrial arm variability using a logistic-normal model with the selected baseline prognostic factors as fixed effects and the individual trial arm as a random effect. A total of 1,132 cases from eight trials qualified. Performance status and sex were independently significant for OS, and performance status was prognostic for PFS. Outcomes for one trial (NCCTG-034A) were significantly different from the other trial arms. When this trial was excluded, the remaining trial arms were homogeneous for OS and PFS outcomes after adjusting for performance status and sex. Benchmark values for 6-month OS and PFS are reported along with a method for using these values in future study design and analysis. The benchmark survival values were generated from a dataset that was homogeneous between trials. The benchmarks can be used to enable single-arm phase II trials using a gemcitabine platform, especially under certain circumstances. Such circumstances might be when a randomized control arm is not practically feasible, an early signal of activity of an experimental agent is being explored such as in expansion cohorts of phase I studies, and in patients who are not candidates for combination cytotoxic therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4176–85. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.

Abstract A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor, in combination with topotecan, a topoisomerase I–targeted agent, was carried out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the combination in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Varying schedules and doses of intravenous topotecan in combination with ABT-888 (10 mg) administered orally twice a day (BID) were evaluated. Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics were assessed and levels of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) and the DNA damage marker γH2AX were measured in tumor and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Significant myelosuppression limited the ability to coadminister ABT-888 with standard doses of topotecan, necessitating dose reductions. Preclinical studies using athymic mice carrying human tumor xenografts also informed schedule changes. The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m2/d and ABT-888 10 mg BID on days one to five of 21-day cycles. Topotecan did not alter the pharmacokinetics of ABT-888. A more than 75% reduction in PAR levels was observed in 3 paired tumor biopsy samples; a greater than 50% reduction was observed in PBMCs from 19 of 23 patients with measurable levels. Increases in γH2AX response in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and PBMCs were observed in patients receiving ABT-888 with topotecan. We show a mechanistic interaction of a PARP inhibitor, ABT-888, with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in PBMCs, tumor, and CTCs. Results of this trial reveal that PARP inhibition can modulate the capacity to repair topoisomerase I–mediated DNA damage in the clinic. Cancer Res; 71(17); 5626–34. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract The optimal design of phase II studies continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, especially studies of newer molecularly targeted agents. The observations that many new therapeutics “fail” in definitive phase III studies, coupled with the numbers of new agents to be tested as well as the increasing costs and complexity of clinical trials, further emphasize the critical importance of robust and efficient phase II design. The Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) has published a series of discussion papers on phase II trial design in Clinical Cancer Research. The IDSC has developed formal recommendations about aspects of phase II trial design that are the subject of frequent debate, such as endpoints (response versus progression-free survival), randomization (single-arm designs versus randomization), inclusion of biomarkers, biomarker-based patient enrichment strategies, and statistical design (e.g., two-stage designs versus multiple-group adaptive designs). Although these recommendations in general encourage the use of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, randomization, inclusion of biomarkers, and incorporation of newer designs, we acknowledge that objective response as an endpoint and single-arm designs remain relevant in certain situations. The design of any clinical trial should always be carefully evaluated and justified based on characteristic specific to the situation. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1764–9

Abstract As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.