UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

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.

Defining responses to therapy and study outcomes in clinical trials of invasive fungal diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus criteria.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.

Construction of ethics in clinical research - Clinical trials registration

Scientific development that has been achieved through decades finds in clinical research a great possibility of translating findings to human health application. Evidence given by clinical trials allows everyone to have access to the best health services. However, the millionaire world of pharmaceutical industries has stained clinical research with doubt and improbability. Study results (fruits of controlled clinical trials) and scientific publications (selective, manipulated and with wrong conclusions) led to an inappropriate clinical practice, favoring the involved economic aspect. In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), supported by the World Association of Medical Editors, started demanding as a requisite for publication that all clinical trials be registered at the database ClinicalTrials.gov. In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) created the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), which gathers several registry centers from all over the world, and required that all researchers and pharmaceutical industries register clinical trials. Such obligatory registration has progressed and will extend to all scientific journals indexed in all worldwide databases. Registration of clinical trials means another step of clinical research towards transparency, ethics and impartiality, resulting in real evidence to the forthcoming changes in clinical practice as well as in the health situation.

Ocular toxicity during adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for early breast cancer: results from International Breast Cancer Study Group trials

BACKGROUND: Others have reported ocular toxicity after adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy, but this study looked at ocular toxicity in similarly treated patients from large randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Information was retrieved on incidence and timing of ocular toxicity from the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) database of 4948 eligible patients randomized to receive tamoxifen or toremifene alone or in combination with chemotherapy (either concurrently or sequentially). Case reports of patients with ocular toxicity were evaluated to determine whether ocular toxicity occurred during chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy. Additional information was obtained from participating institutions for patients in whom ocular toxicity occurred after chemotherapy but during administration of tamoxifen or toremifene. RESULTS: Ocular toxicity was reported in 538 of 4948 (10.9%) patients during adjuvant treatment, mainly during chemotherapy. Forty-five of 4948 (0.9%) patients had ocular toxicity during hormone therapy alone, but only 30 (0.6%) patients had ocular toxicity reported either without receiving any chemotherapy or beyond 3 months after completing chemotherapy and, thus, possibly related to tamoxifen or toremifene. In 3 cases, retinal alterations, without typical aspects of tamoxifen toxicity, were reported; 4 patients had cataract (2 bilateral), 12 impaired visual acuity, 10 ocular irritation, 1 optical neuritis, and the rest had other symptoms. CONCLUSION: Ocular toxicity during adjuvant therapy is a common side effect mainly represented by irritative symptoms due to chemotherapy. By contrast, ocular toxicity during hormonal therapy is rare and does not appear to justify a regular program of ocular examination. However, patients should be informed of this rare side effect so that they may seek prompt ophthalmic evaluation for ocular complaints.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

Phase I clinical trials in 56 patients with thyroid cancer: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy. The outcomes of patients with relapsed thyroid cancer treated on early-phase clinical trials have not been systematically analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with metastatic thyroid cancer referred to the Phase I Clinical Trials Program from March 2006 to April 2008. Best response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were identified. The median age was 55 yr (range 35-79 yr). Of 49 patients evaluable for response, nine (18.4%) had a partial response, and 16 (32.7%) had stable disease for 6 months or longer. The median progression-free survival was 1.12 yr. With a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the 1-yr survival rate was 81%. In univariate analysis, factors predicting shorter survival were anaplastic histology (P = 0.0002) and albumin levels less than 3.5 g/dl (P = 0.05). Among 26 patients with tumor decreases, none died (median follow-up 1.3 yr), whereas 52% of patients with any tumor increase died by 1 yr (P = 0.0001). The median time to failure in our phase I clinical trials was 11.5 months vs. 4.1 months for the previous treatment (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced thyroid cancer treated on phase I clinical trials had high rates of partial response and prolonged stable disease. Time to failure was significantly longer on the first phase I trial compared with the prior conventional treatment. Patients with any tumor decrease had significantly longer survival than those with any tumor increase.

Hyperthermia-related clinical trials on cancer treatment within the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

PURPOSE Hyperthermia has been shown to improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer. This paper summarises all recent clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS The records of 175,538 clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were downloaded on 29 September 2014 and a database was established. We searched this database for hyperthermia or equivalent words. RESULTS A total of 109 trials were identified in which hyperthermia was part of the treatment regimen. Of these, 49 trials (45%) had hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after cytoreductive surgery (HIPEC) as the primary intervention, and 14 other trials (13%) were also testing some form of intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion. Seven trials (6%) were testing perfusion attempts to other locations (thoracic/pleural n = 4, limb n = 2, hepatic n = 1). Sixteen trials (15%) were testing regional hyperthermia, 13 trials (12%) whole body hyperthermia, seven trials (6%) superficial hyperthermia and two trials (2%) interstitial hyperthermia. One remaining trial tested laser hyperthermia. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to the general opinion, this analysis shows continuous interest and ongoing clinical research in the field of hyperthermia. Interestingly, the majority of trials focused on some form of intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion. Despite the high number of active clinical studies, HIPEC is a topic with limited attention at the annual meetings of the European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology and the Society of Thermal Medicine. The registration of on-going clinical trials is of paramount importance for the achievement of a comprehensive overview of available clinical research activities involving hyperthermia.

Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials

Peer reviewed

Virtual Clinical Trials in PET Imaging for Improved Diagnosis of and Evaluation of Therapies for Cancer

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

BRAF inhibitors : from the laboratory to clinical trials

BRAF is one of the most commonly mutated proto-oncogenes and plays a significant role in the development of numerous cancers of high clinical impact. Due to the commonality of BRAF mutations, a number of BRAF inhibitors have been developed as tools in the management of patients with cancers dependent on the action of mutant BRAF to drive cellular proliferation. In this review, we examine the current state of clinical trials and laboratory research concerning BRAF inhibitors in development and available for clinical use. We contrast the effectiveness of type-I and type-II BRAF inhibitors, the former typically showing much more restricted inhibitory selectivity and greater patient response rates.