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
699P - Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in long-survivor (LS) patients with metastatic lung cancer (mLC) after primary immunization (PV) and booster (BD): COVALENCE study
Presenter: Emanuele Vita
Session: Poster session 17
700P - First-in-human dose-escalating study of ABSK043, a novel and oral small-molecule inhibitor of PD-L1, in patients with advanced solid tumors
Presenter: Adam Cooper
Session: Poster session 17
701P - NCI10221: Phase II multicenter biomarker driven combination trial of copanlisib and nivolumab in patients with molecularly-selected advanced solid tumors (BaCoN)
Presenter: Timothy Yap
Session: Poster session 17
702P - Characterization of germline HLA genotypes in patients (pts) with solid tumors treated with immunotherapy
Presenter: Katerin Rojas Laimito
Session: Poster session 17
703P - Prognostic scores for immunotherapy-based phase one trials (P1T): To GRIm or not to GRIm?
Presenter: Pauline Corbaux
Session: Poster session 17
705P - TIMES: A ctDNA tumor fraction based and externally validated nomogram to predict survival in cancer patients referred for early phase trials
Presenter: Antoine Italiano
Session: Poster session 17
706P - The IMPRESS-Norway trial: Improving public cancer care by implementing precision cancer medicine in Norway - Safety analysis of the first 126 patients included in the trial
Presenter: Katarina Puco
Session: Poster session 17
707P - Personalised dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology: The era of therapeutic drug monitoring
Presenter: Maud van der Kleij
Session: Poster session 17