Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Methodologic rigor of clinical trials on surgical management of eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.

RESULTS:

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

Allocating Participants to Groups In Educational Trials: What Does Random Mean?

What is meant by the term random? Do we understand how to identify which type of randomisation to use in our future research projects? We, as researchers, often explain randomisation to potential research participants as being a 50/50 chance of selection to either an intervention or control group, akin to drawing numbers out of a hat. Is this an accurate explanation? And are all methods of randomisation equal? This paper aims to guide the researcher through the different techniques used to randomise participants with examples of how they can be used in educational research.

The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Key Priorities, Purposes and Aims and the Implications for Public Health

The replacement of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive by the new Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which entered into force on 16 June 2014 but will not apply before 28 May 2016, provides an opportunity to review the legal and political context within which this important aspect of research law and policy sits and to reflect on the implications for public health. My aim in this article is to relate the context to the key purposes and aims of EU law and policy on clinical trials in order to explain and clarify its orientation. On that basis, I argue that the CTR and the changes it introduces to the law on clinical trials are part of the EU's continued focus on market optimisation. It is this focus that orients and directs the wider pharmaceutical development pipeline, but that undermines the achievement of key public health objectives.

Biomarker responses to folic acid intervention in healthy adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The task of revising dietary folate recommendations for optimal health is complicated by a lack of data quantifying the biomarker response that reliably reflects a given folate intake.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis in healthy adults to quantify the typical response of recognized folate biomarkers to a change in folic acid intake.

DESIGN: Electronic and bibliographic searches identified 19 randomized controlled trials that supplemented with folic acid and measured folate biomarkers before and after the intervention in apparently healthy adults aged ≥18 y. For each biomarker response, the regression coefficient (β) for individual studies and the overall pooled β were calculated by using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Folate biomarkers (serum/plasma and red blood cell folate) increased in response to folic acid in a dose-response manner only up to an intake of 400 μg/d. Calculation of the overall pooled β for studies in the range of 50 to 400 μg/d indicated that a doubling of folic acid intake resulted in an increase in serum/plasma folate by 63% (71% for microbiological assay; 61% for nonmicrobiological assay) and red blood cell folate by 31% (irrespective of whether microbiological or other assay was used). Studies that used the microbiological assay indicated lower heterogeneity compared with studies using nonmicrobiological assays for determining serum/plasma (I(2) = 13.5% compared with I(2) = 77.2%) and red blood cell (I(2) = 45.9% compared with I(2) = 70.2%) folate.

CONCLUSIONS: Studies administering >400 μg folic acid/d show no dose-response relation and thus will not yield meaningful results for consideration when generating dietary folate recommendations. The calculated folate biomarker response to a given folic acid intake may be more robust with the use of a microbiological assay rather than alternative methods for blood folate measurement.

Exploring the Findings from Three Randomised Controlled Trials of Bookgifting Programmes

Aims: This paper explores the effects from three similar bookgifting programmes on improving reading outcomes of early years’ children, their parents and teachers.
Methods: The paper draws on research data produced by the Centre for Effective Education during three randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluations of bookgifting programmes (N=1694 participant families in total). The three studies used pre and post test measures to identify effects across a total of 15 social, cognitive and behavioural reading outcomes.
Results: The overall average effect across the 15 outcomes from data provided by 1694 participant families, was d=0.07. This is a relatively small overall effect and there was an overall pattern of small positive effects of this scale across the wide range of the reading outcomes assessed. However, only one significant effect was identified in the 15 outcomes assessed across all three studies.
Conclusions: The review of these three studies suggests that the RCTs struggle to identify significant effects in these low exposure and low cost bookgifting interventions. Furthermore, it is recommended that future RCT studies of this type of programme require very large sample sizes in the scale of 1000’s rather than 100’s to generate enough study power. Or alternatively, these programmes could be evaluated as a component part of more intensive reading interventions.

Respecting and fulfilling the right of post-primary pupils to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research: A discussion paper

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children’s rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly we will consider the children’s rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritise at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils’ ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research.

Biomarker analysis in oesophagogastric cancer: Results from the REAL3 and TransMAGIC trials.

BACKGROUND: REAL3 (Randomised ECF for Advanced or Locally advanced oesophagogastric cancer 3) was a phase II/III trial designed to evaluate the addition of panitumumab (P) to epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (EOC) in untreated advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma. MAGIC (MRC Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy) was a phase III study which demonstrated that peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin and infused 5-fluorouracil (ECF) improved survival in early oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of response rate (RR; the primary end-point of phase II) and biomarkers in the first 200 patients randomised to EOC or modified dose (m) EOC+P in REAL3 was pre-planned to determine if molecular selection for the on-going study was indicated. KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations and PTEN expression were assessed in pre-treatment biopsies and results correlated with response to mEOC+P. Association between these biomarkers and overall survival (OS) was assessed in MAGIC patients to determine any prognostic effect. RESULTS: RR was 52% to mEOC+P, 48% to EOC. Results from 175 assessable biopsies: mutations in KRAS (5.7%), BRAF (0%), PIK3CA (2.5%) and loss of PTEN expression (15.0%). None of the biomarkers evaluated predicted resistance to mEOC+P. In MAGIC, mutations in KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA and loss of PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) were found in 6.3%, 1.0%, 5.0% and 10.9%, respectively, and were not associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: The RR of 52% in REAL3 with mEOC+P met pre-defined criteria to continue accrual to phase III. The frequency of the mutations was too low to exclude any prognostic or predictive effect.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).