Correction to: First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the spelling of one of the author names. In this Correction the incorrect and correct author names are indicated and the author name has been updated in the original publication. The authors also reported an error in the Methods section of the original article. In this Correction the incorrect and correct versions of the affected sentence are indicated. The original article has not been updated with regards to the error in the Methods section.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144529/1/12967_2018_Article_1552.pd

Systematic review of combinations of targeted or immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design

Systematic review of combinations of targeted or immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design

Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: Current Landscape and Opportunities for Improvement

Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as "recruiting" or "not yet recruiting" as of February 2021

Oncolytic DNX-2401 virotherapy plus pembrolizumab in recurrent glioblastoma: a phase 1/2 trial.

Immune-mediated anti-tumoral responses, elicited by oncolytic viruses and augmented with checkpoint inhibition, may be an effective treatment approach for glioblastoma. Here in this multicenter phase 1/2 study we evaluated the combination of intratumoral delivery of oncolytic virus DNX-2401 followed by intravenous anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in recurrent glioblastoma, first in a dose-escalation and then in a dose-expansion phase, in 49 patients. The primary endpoints were overall safety and objective response rate. The primary safety endpoint was met, whereas the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and full dose combined treatment was well tolerated. The objective response rate was 10.4% (90% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-20.7%), which was not statistically greater than the prespecified control rate of 5%. The secondary endpoint of overall survival at 12 months was 52.7% (95% CI 40.1-69.2%), which was statistically greater than the prespecified control rate of 20%. Median overall survival was 12.5 months (10.7-13.5 months). Objective responses led to longer survival (hazard ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.87). A total of 56.2% (95% CI 41.1-70.5%) of patients had a clinical benefit defined as stable disease or better. Three patients completed treatment with durable responses and remain alive at 45, 48 and 60 months. Exploratory mutational, gene-expression and immunophenotypic analyses revealed that the balance between immune cell infiltration and expression of checkpoint inhibitors may potentially inform on response to treatment and mechanisms of resistance. Overall, the combination of intratumoral DNX-2401 followed by pembrolizumab was safe with notable survival benefit in select patients (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02798406)

Oncolytic DNX-2401 virotherapy plus pembrolizumab in recurrent glioblastoma: a phase 1/2 trial.

Immune-mediated anti-tumoral responses, elicited by oncolytic viruses and augmented with checkpoint inhibition, may be an effective treatment approach for glioblastoma. Here in this multicenter phase 1/2 study we evaluated the combination of intratumoral delivery of oncolytic virus DNX-2401 followed by intravenous anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in recurrent glioblastoma, first in a dose-escalation and then in a dose-expansion phase, in 49 patients. The primary endpoints were overall safety and objective response rate. The primary safety endpoint was met, whereas the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and full dose combined treatment was well tolerated. The objective response rate was 10.4% (90% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-20.7%), which was not statistically greater than the prespecified control rate of 5%. The secondary endpoint of overall survival at 12 months was 52.7% (95% CI 40.1-69.2%), which was statistically greater than the prespecified control rate of 20%. Median overall survival was 12.5 months (10.7-13.5 months). Objective responses led to longer survival (hazard ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.87). A total of 56.2% (95% CI 41.1-70.5%) of patients had a clinical benefit defined as stable disease or better. Three patients completed treatment with durable responses and remain alive at 45, 48 and 60 months. Exploratory mutational, gene-expression and immunophenotypic analyses revealed that the balance between immune cell infiltration and expression of checkpoint inhibitors may potentially inform on response to treatment and mechanisms of resistance. Overall, the combination of intratumoral DNX-2401 followed by pembrolizumab was safe with notable survival benefit in select patients (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02798406)

The RA-MAP Consortium: A working model for academia-industry collaboration

Collaboration can be challenging; nevertheless, the emerging successes of large, multi-partner, multi-national cooperatives and research networks in the biomedical sector have sustained the appetite of academics and industry partners for developing and fostering new research consortia. This model has percolated down to national funding agencies across the globe, leading to funding for projects that aim to realise the true potential of genomic medicine in the 21st century and to reap the rewards of 'big data'. In this Perspectives article, the experiences of the RA-MAP consortium, a group of more than 140 individuals affiliated with 21 academic and industry organizations that are focused on making genomic medicine in rheumatoid arthritis a reality are described. The challenges of multi-partner collaboration in the UK are highlighted and wide-ranging solutions are offered that might benefit large research consortia around the world

Erratum: The RA-MAP Consortium: a working model for academia–industry collaboration

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrrheum.2017.200

Correction to: First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the spelling of one of the author names. In this Correction the incorrect and correct author names are indicated and the author name has been updated in the original publication. The authors also reported an error in the Methods section of the original article. In this Correction the incorrect and correct versions of the affected sentence are indicated. The original article has not been updated with regards to the error in the Methods section