A Case-Control Study Brings to Light the Causes of Screen Failures in Phase 1 Cancer Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION:Enrolling cancer patients in phase I clinical trials (P1s) requires that they fulfill specific criteria. Between the time they sign the consent form and the 1st administration of the experimental drug, some patients may be excluded and considered as screen failures (SFs). Our objective was to assess SF patients profiles and the reasons and risk factors for SFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS:All patients included in P1s at Gustave Roussy from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. SFs were matched with control P1 patients who were successfully enrolled. Patient and tumor characteristics, P1 types and the reasons for SF were analyzed. RESULTS:Among 1,293 patients, 192 (15%) were SF cases; 182 SF cases were matched with 182 controls: median age was 57 (48-64) and 55 (47-63), median home-cancer center distance was 69 vs 55 km, 45% vs 34% had more than 2 metastatic sites, median screening period was 14 vs 11 days, median progression-free survival during the previous line was 12 vs 14 weeks, 37% vs 29% of LDH values were above the upper limit of normal, 42% vs 36% of albumin values were < 35 g/L, respectively. Reasons for SFs were cancer progression (44%), sponsor decision unrelated to a clinical reason (25%), patient retrieval (13.5%), relevant comorbidity (13.5%). Multivariate analysis revealed that a high Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score was potentially associated with higher risk of SFs (OR = 2.3; 95% CI [1.0-5.7], p = 0.06). CONCLUSION:Cancer progression led to half of the SFs in P1s. Physicians should pay attention to the RMH score at the time of patient inclusion to avoid further SFs

Patient characteristics at the time of signing the informed consent form (inclusion).

<p>Patient characteristics at the time of signing the informed consent form (inclusion).</p

Types of phase 1 clinical trials in which cases and controls were included.

<p>Types of phase 1 clinical trials in which cases and controls were included.</p

Reasons for screen failures in matched cases.

<p>Reasons for screen failures in matched cases.</p

Anticancer Activity and Tolerance of Treatments Received Beyond Progression in Men Treated Upfront with Androgen Deprivation Therapy With or Without Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-naïve Prostate Cancer in the GETUG-AFU 15 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6-7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3-4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting