Cancer Trials Ecosystem in India-Ready for Prime Time?

Executing global clinical trials for cancer is a long, expensive, and complex undertaking. While selecting countries global studies, sponsors must consider several aspects including patient pool, quality of trained investigators, competing trials, availability of infrastructure, and financial investment versus returns. With a large, often treatment-naïve, and diverse patient pool, relatively low cost, good quality health care facilities in urban areas, and a robust and well-trained workforce, India offers several advantages for conducting oncology clinical trials. However, there remains challenges, including a shifting regulatory environment in recent decades. With the implementation of the New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules in 2019, India's regulatory atmosphere seems to have stabilized. In this article, we present a review of the evolving clinical trial landscape in India, highlight the current regulatory scenario, and discuss the advantages and challenges of selecting India as a potential location for conducting global oncology clinical trials.

Daratumumab in Indian patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a prospective, multicenter, phase IV study.

Aim: To assess the safety and effectiveness of daratumumab monotherapy in Indian patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, phase IV study, patients (aged ≥18 years) received intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg) in six cycles. Safety was the primary end point. Results: Of the 139 patients included, 121 (87.1%) experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 53 [38.1%] drug-related), 32 (23%) had ≥1 serious TEAEs (five [3.6%] drug-related) and 16 (11.5%) deaths were reported (one death [0.7%] was drug-related). Overall response rate was 26.3%; 62.7% of patients had stable disease. Median time to first response and median progression-free survival were 5.2 and 5.9 months, respectively. Functional status and well-being were improved. Conclusion: Daratumumab showed an acceptable and expected safety profile with consistent efficacy, providing a novel therapeutic option for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma management in India.

Daratumumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study evaluated the outcome of daratumumab single therapy in Indian patients who were not cured with other drugs used for the same disease. 139 adult patients were included in this study from 15 institutes across India. Daratumumab (16 mg/kg) was diluted with 500 or 1000 ml of saline solution and given slowly through the intravenous route 16-times within 6 months. The study examined whether the safety profile and benefits of daratumumab reported in Indian patients were similar to those reported in the RRMM populations of other countries. The study found that most of the adverse events were not severe and could be easily treated by the study physician. 16 patients died (one might have been due to daratumumab treatment). Daratumumab treatment provided life support and recovery benefits to many patients. Daratumumab single therapy provides an appropriate and acceptable safety profile with no new adverse events and consistent benefits in RRMM patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03768960 (ClinicalTrials.gov), CTRI/2019/06/019546.

A Phase IIIb Open-Label, Single-Arm Study of Afatinib in EGFR TKI-Naïve Patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC: Final Analysis, with a Focus on Patients Enrolled at Sites in China.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib has been shown as a suitable option for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized controlled trials. However, patients treated in real-world clinical practice, including elderly patients, and those with brain metastases or poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance statuses, are often excluded from these studies. OBJECTIVE: To report the final results, with a particular focus on patients enrolled in China, from a prospective phase IIIb, "near real-world" study of afatinib in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve Asian patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCT01953913 was conducted at 34 centers across Asia. Entry criteria were broad to reflect real-world settings. Patients received afatinib 40 mg/day until tumor progression, lack of clinical benefit, or poor tolerability. Assessments included safety, time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 541 patients were treated, of whom 412 were enrolled in China. Dose reductions were implemented in 28.7% of patients overall, and 17.7% of patients from China. Safety findings were consistent with phase III studies of afatinib. Median TTSP in all patients was 14.0 months (95% CI 12.9-15.9), and median PFS was 12.1 months (95% CI 11.0-13.6). Median TTSP (13.8 months, 95% CI 12.7-16.1) and PFS (11.4 months, 95% CI 10.9-13.7) were similar in patients from China to the overall population. Among patients from China who had dose reductions, TTSP was numerically longer than in those who did not (16.4 vs. 13.8 months; P = 0.0703), while PFS was significantly longer (13.9 vs. 11.1 months; P = 0.0275). Among patients from China with brain metastases, TTSP was numerically shorter than in those without (11.0 vs. 14.4 months; P = 0.0869), whereas PFS was significantly shorter (9.2 vs. 12.9 months; P = 0.0075). CONCLUSIONS: Safety data for afatinib when used in a "near real-world" setting in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC was consistent with the known safety profile of afatinib. Supporting efficacy data of afatinib were provided in all patients, and in those enrolled in China. Tolerability-guided afatinib dose reduction allowed patients to remain on treatment and continue to experience clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: NCT01953913 (1 October 2013).

Fixed dose combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: Results from THE ENCLOSE phase 2/3 randomized multicenter study.

AIM: To evaluate pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of oral capecitabine + cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients progressing after anthracycline and/or taxane chemotherapy. METHODS: In this prospective, adaptive, phase-2/3, open-label study (CTRI/2014/12/005234), patients were randomized (1:1:1) to three FDC doses (doses/day: D1, capecitabine + cyclophosphamide 1400 mg + 60 mg; D2, 1800 mg + 80 mg; D3, 2200 mg + 100 mg) for 14 days, in 21-day cycles. In Part-I, multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and optimal dose(s) were evaluated with futility analysis. Group(s) with <3 responders based on best overall response rate (BOR, complete response [CR]+partial response [PR]), were discontinued. Efficacy (BOR, disease control rates [DCR; CR + PR + stable disease]) and safety of optimal dose(s) were evaluated in Part-II. RESULTS: Of 66 patients (n = 22/group) in Part-I, pharmacokinetics (D1 = 7/22, D2 = 9/22, D3 = 8/22) showed dose-proportionality for cyclophosphamide and greater than dose-proportionality for capecitabine. Modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis showed BOR of 7.14% (1/14) in D1 (discontinued), and 22.22% (4/18) each in D2 and D3, respectively. In Part-II, 50 additional patients were randomized in D2 and D3 (n = 144; total 72 [22 + 50] patients/group). mITT analysis in D2 (n = 54) and D3 (n = 58) showed BOR of 29.63% (16/54, 95%CI: 17.45-41.81%) and 22.41% (13/58, 95%CI: 11.68-33.15%), respectively. DCR in D2 and D3 were 87.04% (47/54, 95%CI: 78.08-96.00%) and 82.76% (48/58; 95%CI: 73.04-92.48%) after 3 and 57.41% (31/54; 95%CI: 52.41-79.50%) and 50.00% (29/58; 95%CI: 40.40-67.00%), after 6-cycles, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome (16.67%), vomiting (9.72%) in D2, and hand-foot syndrome (18.06%), asthenia (15.28%) in D3 were most-common adverse events. CONCLUSION: FDC of capecitabine + cyclophosphamide (1800 + 80 mg/day) showed high disease control rates and good safety profile in MBC patients.

Practical Consensus Recommendations for Optimizing Risk versus Benefit of Chemotherapy in Patients with HR Positive Her2 Negative Early Breast Cancer in India.

Breast cancer is a public health challenge globally as well as in India. Improving outcome and cure requires appropriate biomarker testing to assign risk and plan treatment. Because it is documented that significant ethnic and geographical variations in biological and genetic features exist worldwide, such biomarkers need to be validated and approved by authorities in the region where these are intended to be used. The use of western guidelines, appropriate for the Caucasian population, can lead to inappropriate overtreatment or undertreatment in Asia and India. A virtual meeting of domain experts discussed the published literature, real-world practical experience, and results of opinion poll involving 185 oncologists treating breast cancer across 58 cities of India. They arrived at a practical consensus recommendation statement to guide community oncologists in the management of hormone positive (HR-positive) Her2-negative early breast cancer (EBC). India has a majority (about 50%) of breast cancer patients who are diagnosed in the premenopausal stage (less than 50 years of age). The only currently available predictive test for HR-positive Her2-negative EBC that has been validated in Indian patients is CanAssist Breast. If this test gives a score indicative of low risk (< 15.5), adjuvant chemotherapy will not increase the chance of metastasis-free survival and should not be given. This is applicable even during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Management of Lymphomas: Consensus Document 2018 by an Indian Expert Group.

The clinical course of lymphoma depends on the indolent or aggressive nature of the disease. Hence, the optimal management of lymphoma needs a correct diagnosis and classification as B cell, T-cell or natural killer (NK)/T-cell as well as indolent or high-grade type lymphoma. The current consensus statement, developed by experts in the field across India, is intended to help healthcare professionals manage lymphomas in adults over 18 years of age. However, it should be noted that the information provided may not be appropriate to all patients and individual patient circumstances may dictate alternative approaches. The consensus statement discusses the diagnosis, staging and prognosis applicable to all subtypes of lymphoma, and detailed treatment regimens for specific entities of lymphoma including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

Patterns of epidermal growth factor receptor testing across 111 tertiary care centers in India: Result of a questionnaire-based survey.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a survey of 111 medical oncologists across India to understand the current pattern of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing at their respective centers. METHODS: Medical oncologists from 111 institutes across India were interviewed face to face using a structured questionnaire. They were divided into two groups - Group 1 with in-house EGFR testing and Group 2 who send samples to central/commercial laboratories outside their institutions. Answers of the two groups were analyzed to see the prevailing patterns of EGFR testing and differences between the two groups if any. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent (105/111) of medical oncologists recommended testing for EGFR mutations in patients with adenocarcinoma histology and 40% (44/111) recommended EGFR testing in squamous cell histology. The average time duration to get EGFR test results was 10 days in Group 1 centers versus 18 days in Group 2 centers. Ninety-six percent (106/111) of the medical oncologists from Group 1 centers requested for factoring additional sample for biomarker testing compared to 69% (77/111) of the oncologists from Group 2 centers. Sixty-nine percent (77/111) of medical oncologists in Group 1 centers would prefer to wait for the test results before initiating treatment compared to 46% (51/111) in Group 2. EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors were used in only approximately 60% of patients with diagnosed EGFR mutation in the first line. For patients in whom chemotherapy was initiated while waiting for test results, 50% (56/111) of medical oncologists would prefer to complete 4-6 cycles before switching to targeted therapy. At the time of progression, rebiopsy was possible in approximately 25% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Turnaround time for molecular testing should improve so that eligible patients can benefit from targeted therapies in the first line. There is a need to increase the awareness among pulmonologists, oncologists, and interventional radiologists regarding the importance of adequate samples required for molecular tests.

Randomized study of etirinotecan pegol versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor designed to provide sustained exposure to SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan). This phase II study compared EP versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for KRAS-mutant, irinotecan-naïve, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to EP 145 mg/m2 or irinotecan 350 mg/m2 Q21d until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with response determined by central radiologic review (RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: The study was terminated before completing accrual due to evolving standards of care. Eighty-three patients were randomized. Median PFS was longer with EP versus irinotecan (4.0 versus 2.8 months, respectively; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.40-1.04; P = 0.07). Six-month PFS rates were 32.8 and 15.4%, respectively. Median OS was 9.6 and 8.4 months in EP and irinotecan arms, respectively (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.56-1.49). ORRs were 10 and 5%, respectively (P = 0.676); median DOR was significantly longer in EP arm (7.9 versus 1.4 months; P = 0.018). The most common grade-3/4 adverse events for EP and irinotecan were diarrhea (21 vs 20%), neutropenia (10 vs 22%), abdominal pain (14 vs 5%), nausea (14 vs 2%), and vomiting (12 vs 7%), respectively. CONCLUSION: EP is active and safe for second-line treatment of KRAS-mutant, irinotecan-naïve mCRC.

Efficacy of erlotinib as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer who have not experienced disease progression or unacceptable toxicity during chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance with erlotinib in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without progression after four cycles of chemotherapy was well tolerated and significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo. AIM AND DESIGN: This open-label, single arm, Phase IV, interventional study was designed to evaluate erlotinib as first-line maintenance after chemotherapy in Indian NSCLC patients. Primary efficacy objective was to evaluate PFS rate (PFSR) at week 52 and secondary objectives were determination of PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and safety. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with erlotinib until disease progression/death/unacceptable toxicity or end of study. Patients with disease progression underwent scheduled clinical assessments every 12 weeks thereafter. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate PFSR, PFS, and OS. The ORR was summarized using number and percentage along with two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) was tabulated according to severity, outcome, and relationship to erlotinib. RESULTS: Of the 51 enrolled patients, 47 patients completed the study (2: Continuing treatment, 41: Disease progression, and 4: Death) and four patients discontinued treatment (3: Lost to follow-up; 1: Withdrew consent). PFSR was 22.5% at 12 months, median PFS 99 days (14.14 weeks), and median OS was 671 days (22 months). The probability of OS was 74.5% at 14 months. The ORR was 25.5%, and disease control rate was 55.3%. AEs were reported in 62.7% and SAE in 7.8% of patients. Common AEs were diarrhea and rash. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib was well tolerated by Indian patients in first-line maintenance setting and resulted in median PFS of 14 weeks and median OS of 22 months better than previously reported and with no new safety concerns in this population.

Paclitaxel injection concentrate for nanodispersion versus nab-paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, comparative phase II/III study.

Paclitaxel is widely used in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Formulations of paclitaxel contain surfactants and solvents or albumin derived from human blood. The use of co-solvents such as polyoxyethylated castor oil is thought to contribute to toxicity profile and hypersensitivity reactions as well as leaching of plasticizers from polyvinyl chloride bags and infusion sets. Currently, nab-paclitaxel, an albumin-bound paclitaxel in nanometer range continues to be the preferred taxane formulation used in clinic. This study (CTRI/2010/091/001116) investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a polyoxyethylated castor oil- and albumin-free formulation of paclitaxel [paclitaxel injection concentrate for nanodispersion (PICN)] compared with nab-paclitaxel in women with refractory MBC. The current study was a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, comparative phase II/III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of PICN (260 mg/m(2) [n = 64] and 295 mg/m(2) [n = 58] every 3 weeks) compared with nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks [n = 58]) in women 18 and 70 years old with confirmed MBC. Overall response rate (ORR) was assessed with imaging every 2 cycles. An independent analysis of radiologic data was performed for evaluable patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary efficacy measure. Independent radiologist-assessed ORRs in the evaluable population of women aged ≥70 years were 35, 49, and 43 % in the PICN 260 mg/m(2), PICN 295 mg/m(2), and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) arms, respectively. Median PFS in the evaluable population was 23, 35, and 34 weeks in the PICN 260 mg/m(2), PICN 295 mg/m(2), and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) arms, respectively. Adverse events occurred in similar proportions of patients across treatment arms. Hypersensitivity reactions were not frequently observed with the clinical use of PICN across the treatment cohorts. In women with metastatic breast cancer, PICN at 260 and 295 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks was effective and well tolerated and showed similar tolerability compared with nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Statistically, significant differences were not observed in the PICN and nab-paclitaxel treatment arms for radiologist-assessed ORR or median PFS. The novel paclitaxel formulation, PICN, offers apart from efficacy, potential safety advantage of decreased use of corticosteroid pretreatment and the absence of the risk of transmission of blood product-borne disease.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study evaluating sorafenib in combination with paclitaxel as a first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled screening trial to evaluate the addition of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (antiproliferative/antiangiogenic) to first-line paclitaxel for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomised to paclitaxel (90mg/m(2), weekly, intravenously, 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus sorafenib (400mg, orally, twice daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A sample size of 220 patients was planned with relative risk ≤ 0.82 (1-sided α=0.14) after 120 events supporting a treatment effect. FINDINGS: Patients were randomised in India (n=170), the United States (n=52) and Brazil (n=15). Median PFS was 6.9 months for sorafenib versus 5.6 months for placebo (hazard ratio (HR)=0.788; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.558-1.112; P=0.1715 [1-sided P=0.0857]). The addition of sorafenib increased time to progression (median, 8.1 versus 5.6 months; HR=0.674; 95% CI 0.465-0.975; P=0.0343) and improved overall response (67% versus 54%; P=0.0468). Overall survival did not statistically differ (median, 16.8 versus 17.4 months; HR=1.022; 95% CI 0.715-1.461; P=0.904). Grade 3/4 toxicities (sorafenib versus placebo) included hand-foot skin reaction (31% versus 3%), neutropenia (13% versus 7%) and anaemia (11% versus 6%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred (malaria and liver dysfunction) in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to paclitaxel improved disease control but did not significantly improve PFS to support a phase 3 trial of similar design. Toxicity of the combination was manageable with dose reductions.