Use of Seamless Study Designs in Oncology Clinical Development- A Survey Conducted by IDSWG Oncology Sub-team.

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making.

Randomized Phase III Study of Amcenestrant Plus Palbociclib Versus Letrozole Plus Palbociclib in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Primary Results From AMEERA-5.

Purpose: AMEERA-5 investigated amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor [ER] degrader) plus palbociclib versus letrozole plus palbociclib as first-line treatment for ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC).

Materials And Methods: In AMEERA-5 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04478266), a double-blind, double-dummy, international phase III trial, adult pre-/post-menopausal women and men without previous systemic therapy for ER+/HER2- aBC were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant 200 mg once daily + standard palbociclib dosage (125 mg once daily, 21 days on/7 days off) or letrozole 2.

AMEERA-4: a randomized, preoperative window-of-opportunity study of amcenestrant versus letrozole in early breast cancer.

Background: Window-of-opportunity (WOO) studies provide insights into the clinical activity of new drugs in breast cancer.

Methods: AMEERA-4 (NCT04191382) was a WOO study undertaken to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of amcenestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, with those of letrozole in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed, operable estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. Women were randomized (1:1:1) to receive amcenestrant 400 mg, amcenestrant 200 mg, or letrozole 2.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy uptake, toxicity, quality of life, and prediction of early discontinuation.

Background: Many patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for breast cancer experience side effects and reduced quality of life (QoL) and discontinue ET. We sought to describe these issues and develop a prediction model of early discontinuation of ET.

Methods: Among patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer of the Cancer Toxicities cohort (NCT01993498) who were prescribed adjuvant ET between 2012 and 2017, upon stratification by menopausal status, we evaluated adjuvant ET patterns including treatment change and patient-reported discontinuation and ET-associated toxicities and impact on QoL.

AMEERA-3: Randomized Phase II Study of Amcenestrant (Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Monotherapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) demonstrated promising safety and efficacy in earlier clinical studies for endocrine-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC).

Patients And Methods: In AMEERA-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04059484), an open-label, worldwide phase II trial, patients with ER+/HER2- aBC who progressed in the (neo)adjuvant or advanced settings after not more than two previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant or single-agent endocrine treatment of physician's choice (TPC), stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastases, previous/no treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1).

Utilization of treatment effect on a surrogate endpoint for planning a study to evaluate treatment effect on a final endpoint.

To design a phase III study with a final endpoint and calculate the required sample size for the desired probability of success, we need a good estimate of the treatment effect on the endpoint. It is prudent to fully utilize all available information including the historical and phase II information of the treatment as well as external data of the other treatments. It is not uncommon that a phase II study may use a surrogate endpoint as the primary endpoint and has no or limited data for the final endpoint.

AMEERA-1 phase 1/2 study of amcenestrant, SAR439859, in postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

AMEERA-1 is a Phase 1/2 open-label single-arm study evaluating once-daily (QD) amcenestrant, an orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, in postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (NCT03284957), who were mostly heavily pretreated (including targeted therapies and fulvestrant). In the dose escalation phase (Part A: n = 16), patients received amcenestrant 20-600 mg QD. Based on absence of dose-limiting toxicities, paired functional F-fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography, and pharmacokinetics, 400 mg QD was selected as recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for the dose expansion phase (Part B: n = 49).

Applications of Bayesian analysis to proof-of-concept trial planning and decision making.

Decision making is a critical component of a new drug development process. Based on results from an early clinical trial such as a proof of concept trial, the sponsor can decide whether to continue, stop, or defer the development of the drug. To simplify and harmonize the decision-making process, decision criteria have been proposed in the literature.

Penalty-based approaches to evaluating multiplicity adjustments in clinical trials: Traditional multiplicity problems.

Given the importance of addressing multiplicity issues in confirmatory clinical trials, several recent publications focused on the general goal of identifying most appropriate methods for multiplicity adjustment in each individual setting. This goal can be accomplished using the Clinical Scenario Evaluation approach. This approach encourages trial sponsors to perform comprehensive assessments of applicable analysis strategies such as multiplicity adjustments under all plausible sets of statistical assumptions using relevant evaluation criteria.

Penalty-based approaches to evaluating multiplicity adjustments in clinical trials: Advanced multiplicity problems.

Given the importance of addressing multiplicity issues in confirmatory clinical trials, several recent publications focused on the general goal of identifying most appropriate methods for multiplicity adjustment in each individual setting. This goal can be accomplished using the Clinical Scenario Evaluation approach. This approach encourages trial sponsors to perform comprehensive assessments of applicable analysis strategies such as multiplicity adjustments under all plausible sets of statistical assumptions using relevant evaluation criteria.

Implementation of adaptive methods in early-phase clinical trials.

There has been constant development of novel statistical methods in the design of early-phase clinical trials since the introduction of model-based designs, yet the traditional or modified 3+3 algorithmic design remains the most widely used approach in dose-finding studies. Research has shown the limitations of this traditional design compared with more innovative approaches yet the use of these model-based designs remains infrequent. This can be attributed to several causes including a poor understanding from clinicians and reviewers into how the designs work, and how best to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed design.

Tradeoff-based optimization criteria in clinical trials with multiple objectives and adaptive designs.

The article discusses clinical trial optimization problems in the context of mid- to late-stage drug development. Using the Clinical Scenario Evaluation approach, main objectives of clinical trial optimization are formulated, including selection of clinically relevant optimization criteria, identification of sets of optimal and nearly optimal values of the parameters of interest, and sensitivity assessments. The paper focuses on a class of optimization criteria arising in clinical trials with several competing goals, termed tradeoff-based optimization criteria, and discusses key considerations in constructing and applying tradeoff-based criteria.

Development of gatekeeping strategies in confirmatory clinical trials.

This paper discusses multiplicity issues arising in confirmatory clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives. In order to protect the overall type I error rate, multiple objectives are analyzed using multiple testing procedures. When the objectives are ordered and grouped in multiple families (e.