Abstract 709P
Background
Adaptive design (AD) trials have been developed as an innovative alternative to conventional design (CD) trials with the aim of accelerating innovative medicinal products (InMP) clinical development. Despite AD concept adoption by major competent authorities the use and implementation of AD remains substantially lower than CD. There is an emerging need to better understand the operational characteristics contributing to the challenges and opportunities for wider implementation of AD into oncology InMP development.
Methods
Oncology InMPs approved by the FDA in 2018 were selected for cross-sectional analysis. The ClinicalTrial.gov (CT.gov) platform was used to identify phase III trials conducted with those InMPs between 2010-2021. Analysis was then accomplished by PubMed search for full manuscripts associated with these trials, as additional source to describe trial design and methodology.
Results
Of the 63 indentified phase III trials, 47 (75%) were CD and 16 (25%) were AD. Among the AD, 81% were conducted in solid tumours and 19% in haematological malignancies. AD was associated with several distinct operational characteristics vs CD: i) with comparable number of patients enrolled, median number of sites/trial was higher in AD (203 sites) vs CD (106 sites) leading to substantial differences in median number of patients per individual site observed in CD (35.9 patients) and AD (3.8 patients); ii) AD was clearly associated with higher median number of secondary endpoints (18 endpoints) vs CD (12 endpoints) and substantially shorter median duration of trial (43 months) vs CD (60 months; p=.0129), with potential cost savings of up to 30%; iii) limited details on the AD methodology and decision-making process at the time of interim analysis.
Conclusions
The implementation of AD in oncology InMP development remains low as compared to CD. A degree of AD operational complexity vs CD could have been balanced by assumed stricter patient monitoring and compliance to the study protocol and collection of a larger set of scientific data. With a comparable number of enrolled patients, AD could substantially shorten overall study duration, which in turn leads to trial’s cost savings of up to 30%.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
107P - Comprehensive genomic profiling of “The German-registry of incidental gallbladder carcinoma” cases
Presenter: Nihat Bugra Agaoglu
Session: Poster session 17
108P - FGFR2 fusions and their impact on efficacy of standard chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer
Presenter: Binbin Zheng-Lin
Session: Poster session 17
109P - DNA damage repair pathways in biliary tract cancer: A new target for precision medicine?
Presenter: Ilektra Mavroeidi
Session: Poster session 17
110P - Detection of HER2 overexpression in biliary tract cancers: Comparison of AmoyDx® HER-2 (29D8) assay with ventana PATHWAY anti-HER-2/neu (4B5) assay
Presenter: Hui Dong
Session: Poster session 17
111P - The concordance between circulating tumor DNA and tissue genomic profiling in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer
Presenter: Seonjeong Woo
Session: Poster session 17
112P - Clinical, genomic and transcriptomic characteristics of young-onset biliary tract cancers
Presenter: Thomas Pudlarz
Session: Poster session 17
113P - Molecular profiling of biliary tract cancers in patients of African and European ancestries
Presenter: Zishuo Hu
Session: Poster session 17
114P - Prospective longitudinal tumor-informed ctDNA in resectable biliary tract cancers
Presenter: Gentry King
Session: Poster session 17
115P - Inhibition of KLF5 reduces tumor growth and sensitizes to chemotherapy-induced cell death in experimental models of cholangiocarcinoma
Presenter: Ana Landa Magdalena
Session: Poster session 17