Accelerating the development of genetically engineered cellular therapies: a framework for extrapolating data across related products.

BACKGROUND: Significant advancements have been made in the field of cellular therapy as anti-cancer treatments, with the approval of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies and the development of other genetically engineered cellular therapies. CAR-T cell therapies have demonstrated remarkable clinical outcomes in various hematological malignancies, establishing their potential to change the current cancer treatment paradigm. Due to the increasing importance of genetically engineered cellular therapies in the oncology treatment landscape, implementing strategies to expedite development and evidence generation for the next generation of cellular therapy products can have a positive impact on patients. METHODS: We outline a risk-based methodology and assessment aid for the data extrapolation approach across related genetically engineered cellular therapy products. This systematic data extrapolation approach has applicability beyond CAR-T cells and can influence clinical development strategies for a variety of immune therapies such as T cell receptor (TCR) or genetically engineered and other cell-based therapies (e.g., tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, natural killer cells and macrophages). RESULTS: By analyzing commonalities in manufacturing processes, clinical trial designs, and regulatory considerations, key learnings were identified. These insights support optimization of the development and regulatory approval of novel cellular therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The field of cellular therapy holds immense promise in safely and effectively treating cancer. The ability to extrapolate data across related products presents opportunities to streamline the development process and accelerate the delivery of novel therapies to patients.

End points in clinical trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: time for more dialogue?

We observed lack of clarity and consistency in end point definitions of large randomized clinical trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. These inconsistencies are such that trials might, in fact, address different clinical questions. They complicate interpretation of results, including comparisons across studies. Problems arise from different ways to account for events occurring after randomization including absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or the initiation of new therapy. We call for more dialogue between stakeholders to define with clarity the questions of interest and corresponding end points. We illustrate that assessing different end point rules across a range of plausible patient journeys can be a powerful tool to facilitate such a discussion and contribute to better understanding of patient-relevant end points.

What is this article about? This article talks about the lack of clarity and consistency in the definitions of outcomes used in clinical trials that investigate new treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This is mainly due to how these different outcome definitions handle events such as absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or initiation of new treatment. The authors discuss how these inconsistencies make it hard to interpret the results of individual clinical trials and to compare results across clinical trials.Why is it important? Defining the above events and consequently defining outcomes affects what we can learn from the trials and can lead to different results. Some approaches may not reflect good and bad outcomes for patients appropriately. This makes it challenging for patients, physicians, health authorities and payors to understand the true benefit of treatments under investigation and which one is better.What are the key take-aways? This article serves as a call-to-action for more dialogue among all stakeholders involved in drug development and the decision-making process related to drug evaluations. There is an urgent need for clinical trials to be designed with more clarity and consistency on what is being measured so that relevant questions for patients and prescribing physicians are addressed. Understanding patient journeys will be key to successfully understand what truly matters to patients and how to measure the benefit of new treatments. Such discussions will contribute toward more clarity and consistency in the evaluation of new treatments.