Toxicity and antitumor activity of novel agents in elderly patients with cancer included in phase 1 studies

Introduction The number of cancer cases among the elderly continue to increase as the worldwide population ages. This patient subset is underrepresented in clinical trials, partly because of unresolved uncertainties about age-associated tolerabilities and antitumor activities. We reviewed phase 1 trial data to study tolerance and efficacy of novel agents used for treatment of elderly patients with cancer. Methods Data from 773 consecutive evaluable patients in 85 phase 1 clinical trials (2008-2016) at START Madrid-CIOCC were analyzed according to age, with respect to objective response, survival, and toxicity. Results The mean age was 58.7 (range: 18-87) years; 260 (33.6%) patients were >65 y (elderly group). One hundred thirty-seven (17.8%) patients received immunotherapy drugs, 308 (39.8%) received targeted agents, and 328 (42.4%) received chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in overall survival, objective response, or severe toxicity rates were found according to treatment type. Similar toxicities and clinical activities were found between the two age subgroups; 18.8% of the elderly and 20.7% of the younger patients experienced severe hematological toxicity (p=0.5), and 30.2% and 32.7%, respectively, experienced severe non-hematological toxicity (p=0.4). Regarding antitumor activity, 12.4% of the elderly and 15% of the younger patients achieved objective responses (p=0.41). There were no significant between-group differences in overall survival (9.7 versus 11.5 months, respectively, p=0.1) or progression-free survival (2.3 versus 2.2 months, respectively, p=0.7). Conclusions This retrospective study found that elderly and younger populations had comparable antitumor activities and toxicity profiles. These results support including elderly patients with cancer in early-phase trials.

Analysis of integrated clinical trial protocols in early phases of medicinal product development

Purpose

While in the past, most clinical trial applications (CTAs) following non-integrated (standard) protocols were used to investigate one primary objective concerning a (new) drug, nowadays, the use of integrated protocols investigating multiple objectives within the same CTA becomes more and more popular. The aims of the present study were to investigate the usage and the impact of integrated protocols on regulatory activities and to find the motivation for their increasing use.

Methods

Two thousand nine hundred sixty-nine phase I and I/II CTAs submitted to the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) during the time period from August 1, 2004, until August 31, 2014, were analysed with regard to protocol and sponsor status, duration until initial authorisation and the number of substantial amendments and their respective approval times. Additionally, applicants who submitted integrated protocols to BfArM were interviewed with respect to their opinion on integrated protocols in an online survey.

Results

The percentage of integrated protocols has constantly increased by approximately 10% within the last 10 years from 17.9% in 2004 to 28.2% in 2014. It could be shown that authorisation procedures with single integrated protocols take significantly longer until initial authorisation (58 vs. 53 days) requires more substantial amendments (1.9 vs. 1.2 amendments per CTA) and the approval of the entirety of amendments takes longer to process as compared to standard protocols (22 vs. 14 days). Nevertheless, applicants prefer the use of integrated protocols due to higher time and cost economy for the entire phase I development process.

Conclusion

Although clinical trials (CTs) following integrated protocols are partly more time-consuming and costly, still, time and/or money may be saved during drug development due to the fact that overall, fewer CTs are needed than with standard protocols. Hence, the main reason for the increasing use of integrated protocols is improved time and cost efficiencies when conducting CTs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-017-2335-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.