Considerations for master protocols using external controls.

There has been an increasing use of master protocols in oncology clinical trials because of its efficiency to accelerate cancer drug development and flexibility to accommodate multiple substudies. Depending on the study objective and design, a master protocol trial can be a basket trial, an umbrella trial, a platform trial, or any other form of trials in which multiple investigational products and/or subpopulations are studied under a single protocol. Master protocols can use external data and evidence (e.

A win ratio-based framework to combine multiple clinical endpoints in exploratory basket trials.

In contemporary exploratory phase of oncology drug development, there has been an increasing interest in evaluating investigational drug or drug combination in multiple tumor indications in a single basket trial to expedite drug development. There has been extensive research on more efficiently borrowing information across tumor indications in early phase drug development including Bayesian hierarchical modeling and the pruning-and-pooling methods. Despite the fact that the Go/No-Go decision for subsequent Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial initiation is almost always a multi-facet consideration, the statistical literature of basket trial design and analysis has largely been limited to a single binary endpoint.

Tumor-Agnostic Approvals: Insights and Practical Considerations.

Since the first approval of a tumor-agnostic indication in 2017, a total of seven tumor-agnostic indications involving six drugs have received approval from the FDA. In this paper, the master protocol subteam of the Statistical Methods in Oncology Scientific Working Group, Biopharmaceutical Session, American Statistical Association, provides a comprehensive summary of these seven tumor-agnostic approvals, describing their mechanisms of action; biomarker prevalence; study design; companion diagnostics; regulatory aspects, including comparisons of global regulatory requirements; and health technology assessment approval. Also discussed are practical considerations relating to the regulatory approval of tumor-agnostic indications, specifically (i) recommendations for the design stage to mitigate the risk that exceptions may occur if a treatment is initially hypothesized to be effective for all tumor types and (ii) because drug development continues after approval of a tumor-agnostic indication, recommendations for further development of tumor-specific indications in first-line patients in the setting of a randomized confirmatory basket trial, acknowledging the challenges in this area.

Statistical Considerations on the Use of RWD/RWE for Oncology Drug Approvals: Overview and Lessons Learned.

Despite increasing utilization of real-world data (RWD)/real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory submissions, their application to oncology drug approvals has seen limited success. Real-world data is most commonly summarized as a benchmark control for a single arm study or used to augment the concurrent control in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). While there has been substantial research on usage of RWD/RWE, our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of their use in oncology drug approval submissions to inform future RWD/RWE study design.

A variation of a 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose from a phase 2 trial to a phase 3 trial for oncology drug development.

In a recent article, Zhang et al. proposed a 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose, based on efficacy compared to the control arm, from a Phase 2 trial to a Phase 3 trial for oncology drug development. In this article, we communicate a variation of the proposed design which selects a dose to expand based on direct comparison of high dose to low dose when both doses demonstrate promising efficacy compared to the control arm.

A 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose from a phase 2 trial to a phase 3 trial for oncology drug development.

In oncology, dose-finding studies are largely performed only in Phase I clinical trials and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), a dose initially developed for systemic chemotherapies, is by default selected for the Phase 3 confirmatory trial. With the advent of anti-cancer therapies such as molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, a paradigm shift is underway from the use of conventional MTD approaches to improved dose selection strategies for oncology programs. In response to this new challenge, new study designs are needed to optimize dose selection while still bring life-changing new therapies to patients as soon as possible.

Accuracy and Safety of Novel Designs for Phase I Drug-Combination Oncology Trials.

Despite numerous innovative designs having been published for phase I drug-combination dose finding trials, their use in real applications is rather limited. As a working group under the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section, our goal is to identify the unique challenges associated with drug combination, share industry's experiences with combination trials, and investigate the pros and cons of the existing designs. Toward this goal, we review seven existing designs and distinguish them based on the criterion of whether their primary objectives are to find a single maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the MTD contour (i.

Augmenting Real-World Data Through Modeling Key Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: An Example of Patients With Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Pembrolizumab.

Purpose: To compare and characterize baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) differences by key oncology eligibility criteria for real-world patients from the Flatiron Health database with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Methods: Real world data (RWD) were from the Flatiron Health advanced NSCLC database and include patients who initiated pembrolizumab monotherapy (first, second, or third line of therapy) by November 30, 2019. At the data cutoff (May 31, 2020), the median survival follow-up time was 8.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Master Protocol Framework: Basket, Umbrella and Platform Trials.

Master protocol, categorized as basket trial, umbrella trial or platform trial, is an innovative clinical trial framework that aims to expedite clinical drug development, enhance trial efficiency, and eventually bring medicines to patients faster. Despite a clear uptake on the advantages in the concepts and designs, master protocols are still yet to be widely used. Part of that may be due to the fact that the master protocol framework comes with the need for new statistical designs and considerations for analyses and operational challenges.

Overall Survival With Second-Line Pembrolizumab in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial Versus Propensity-Adjusted Real-World Data.

Purpose: To compare and characterize overall survival (OS) differences between clinical trial data from the KEYNOTE-010 trial and real-world data (RWD) from the Flatiron Health database in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received second-line pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Methods: Clinical trial data were from the randomized phase II/III KEYNOTE-010 trial that enrolled patients from August 28, 2013, to February 27, 2015. At data cutoff for KEYNOTE-010, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab patients was 11.

Are tumor size changes predictive of survival for checkpoint blockade based immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma?

Background: In oncology clinical development, objective response rate, disease control rate and early tumor size changes are commonly used as efficacy metrics for early decision-making. However, for immunotherapy trials, it is unclear whether these early efficacy metrics are still predictive of long-term clinical benefit such as overall survival. The goal of this paper is to identify appropriate early efficacy metrics predictive of overall survival for immunotherapy trials.

Adaptive expansion of biomarker populations in phase 3 clinical trials.

It is well documented in this genomic era that an investigational new drug may have greater treatment effect in a biomarker positive population than in the biomarker negative population. However, limited by preclinical data and early phase clinical data, a lot of Phase 3 confirmatory trials are initiated without fully understanding the biomarker effect. In this article, we will investigate the impact of adaptive population expansion on the overall Type I error in two statistical designs.

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression and Response to the Anti-Programmed Death 1 Antibody Pembrolizumab in Melanoma.

Purpose Expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a potential predictive marker for response and outcome after treatment with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1). This study explored the relationship between anti-PD-1 activity and PD-L1 expression in patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827). Patients and Methods Six hundred fifty-five patients received pembrolizumab10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or once every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg once every 3 weeks.

Association of Pembrolizumab With Tumor Response and Survival Among Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

Importance: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway limits immune responses to melanoma and can be blocked with the humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab.

Objective: To characterize the association of pembrolizumab with tumor response and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma.

Design, Settings, And Participants: Open-label, multicohort, phase 1b clinical trials (enrollment, December 2011-September 2013).

Evaluation of Immune-Related Response Criteria and RECIST v1.1 in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Treated With Pembrolizumab.

Purpose: We evaluated atypical response patterns and the relationship between overall survival and best overall response measured per immune-related response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827).

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

Background: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma.

Methods: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both.

Phase I Study of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475; Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody) in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose: This phase I study evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose, antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Experimental Design: In a 3 + 3 dose escalation study, 10 patients received pembrolizumab 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity. Seven additional patients received 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial.

Background: The anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab has shown potent antitumour activity at different doses and schedules in patients with melanoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in patients with ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma.

Methods: In an open-label, international, multicentre expansion cohort of a phase 1 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses were randomly assigned with a computer-generated allocation schedule (1:1 final ratio) to intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma.

Background: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) receptor is a negative regulator of T-cell effector mechanisms that limits immune responses against cancer. We tested the anti-PD-1 antibody lambrolizumab (previously known as MK-3475) in patients with advanced melanoma.

Methods: We administered lambrolizumab intravenously at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 or 3 weeks or 2 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma, both those who had received prior treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab and those who had not.