UNCAN.eu: Toward a European Federated Cancer Research Data Hub.

To enable a collective effort that generates a new level of UNderstanding CANcer (UNCAN.eu) [Cancer Discov (2022) 12 (11): OF1], the European Union supports the creation of a sustainable platform that connects cancer research across Member States. A workshop hosted in Heidelberg gathered European cancer experts to identify ongoing initiatives that may contribute to building this platform and discuss the governance and long-term evolution of a European Federated Cancer Data Hub.

Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis.

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders-preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of DNA damage response pathway inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy.

Changing incentives to ACCELERATE drug development for paediatric cancer.

BACKGROUND: More effective incentives are needed to motivate paediatric oncology drug development, uncoupling it from dependency on adult drug development. Although the current European and North-American legislations aim to promote drug development for paediatrics and rare diseases, children and adolescents with cancer have not benefited as expected from these initiatives and cancer remains the first cause of death by disease in children older than one. Drug development for childhood cancer remains dependent on adult cancer indications and their potential market. The balance between the investment needed to execute a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) in Europe and an initial Paediatric Study Plan (iPSP) in the US, coupled with the potential financial reward has not been sufficiently attractive to incite the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs for rare indications such as childhood cancer. METHODS: We propose changes in the timing and nature of the rewards within the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation (PMR) and Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (both currently under review), which would drive earlier initiation of paediatric oncology studies and provide incentives for drug development specifically for childhood indications. RESULTS: We suggest modifying the PMR to ensure mechanism-of-action driven mandatory PIP and reorganization of incentives to a stepwise and incremental approach. Interim and final deliverables should be defined within a PIP or iPSP, each attracting a reward on completion. A crucial change would be the introduction of the interim deliverable requiring production of paediatric data that inform the go/no-go decisions on whether to take a drug forward to paediatric efficacy trials. CONCLUSION: Additionally, to address the critical gap in the current framework where there is a complete lack of incentives to promote paediatric-specific cancer drug development, we propose the introduction of early rewards in the Orphan Regulation, with a variant on the US-Creating Hope Act and its priority review vouchers.

Paediatric drug development and evaluation: Existing challenges and recommendations.

Despite various international regulatory initiatives over the last 20 years, many challenges remain in the field of paediatric drug development and evaluation. Indeed, drug research and development is still focused essentially on adult indications, thereby excluding many paediatric patients, limiting the feasibility of trials and favouring competing developments. Off-label prescribing persists and the development of age-appropriate dosage forms for children remains limited. Against this background, the members of this panel (TR) recommend the launch of multi-partner exchange forums on specific topics in order to focus new drug research and development on the real, unmet medical needs of children and adolescents, and in keeping with the underlying mechanisms of action. Scientific information sharing and cooperation between stakeholders are also essential for defining reference evaluation methods in each medical field. These forums can be organised through existing paediatric facilities and research networks at the French and European level. The latter are specifically dedicated to paediatric research and can facilitate clinical trial implementation and patient enrolment. Moreover, specific grants and public/private partnerships are still needed to support studies on the repositioning of drugs in paediatric indications, and pharmacokinetic studies aimed at defining appropriate dosages. The development of new pharmaceutical forms, better suited for paediatric use, and the promotion of resulting innovations will stimulate future investments. Initiatives to gather observational safety and efficacy data following off-label and/or derogatory early access should also be encouraged to compensate for the lack of information available in these situations. Finally, the creation of Ethics Committees (EC) with a specific "mother-child" advisory expertise should be promoted to ensure that the current regulation (Jardé law in France) is implemented whilst also taking into account the paediatric specificities in medical trials.

UNCAN.eu, a European Initiative to UNderstand CANcer.

"UNCAN.eu" refers to a collective European effort seeking to enable a leap forward in our understanding of cancer. This initiative, which includes the creation of a European cancer research data hub, will pave the way to new advances in cancer care. Starting on September 1, 2022, a 15-month coordination and support action will generate a blueprint for UNCAN.eu. Here, we summarize the cancer research issues that the blueprint will propose to tackle at the European level.

ACCELERATE - Five years accelerating cancer drug development for children and adolescents.

Rapid evaluation and subsequent regulatory approval of new drugs are critical to improving survival and reducing long-term side-effects for children and adolescents with cancer. The international multi-stakeholder organisation ACCELERATE was created to advance the timely investigation of new anti-cancer drugs. ACCELERATE has enhanced communication and understanding between academia, industry, patient advocates and regulators. It has promoted a mechanism-of-action driven drug development approach and developed Paediatric Strategy Forums. These initiatives have facilitated prioritisation of medicinal products and a focused and sequential strategy for drug development where there are multiple potential agents. ACCELERATE has championed the early assessment of promising drugs in adolescents through their inclusion in adult early phase trials. ACCELERATE has strongly supported alignment between the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration and identification of unmet medical needs through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Early engagement between all stakeholders in the development of new drugs is critical. Innovative clinical trial designs are required, necessitating early discussion with sponsors and regulators. Amplifying the patient advocate voice through inclusion across the drug development continuum will lead to better, patient-centric trials. By these means, children and adolescents with cancer can maximally and rapidly benefit from innovative products to improve outcomes and reduce burdensome sequelae.

Second Paediatric Strategy Forum for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of 'real-world data' supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children.

ACCELERATE and European Medicines Agency Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in paediatric patients.

The third multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum organised by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in children and adolescents. As immune checkpoint inhibitors, both as monotherapy and in combinations have shown impressive success in some adult malignancies and early phase trials in children of single agent checkpoint inhibitors have now been completed, it seemed an appropriate time to consider opportunities for paediatric studies of checkpoint inhibitors used in combination. Among paediatric patients, early clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors used as monotherapy have demonstrated a high rate of activity, including complete responses, in Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutant paediatric tumours. Activity has been very limited, however, in more common malignancies of childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, apart from tumour mutational burden, no other predictive biomarker for monotherapy activity in paediatric tumours has been identified. Based on these observations, there is collective agreement that there is no scientific rationale for children to be enrolled in new monotherapy trials of additional checkpoint inhibitors with the same mechanism of action of agents already studied (e.g. anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 anti-CTLA-4) unless additional scientific knowledge supporting a different approach becomes available. This shared perspective, based on scientific evidence and supported by paediatric oncology cooperative groups, should inform companies on whether a paediatric development plan is justified. This could then be proposed to regulators through the available regulatory tools. Generally, an academic-industry consensus on the scientific merits of a proposal before submission of a paediatric investigational plan would be of great benefit to determine which studies have the highest probability of generating new insights. There is already a rationale for the evaluation of combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other agents in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutated tumours in view of the activity shown as single agents. In paediatric tumours where no single agent activity has been observed in multiple clinical trials of anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents as monotherapy, combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other treatment modalities should be explored when a scientific rationale indicates that they could be efficacious in paediatric cancers and not because these combinations are being evaluated in adults. Immunotherapy in the form of engineered proteins (e.g. monoclonal antibodies and T cell engaging agents) and cellular products (e.g. CAR T cells) has great therapeutic potential for benefit in paediatric cancer. The major challenge for developing checkpoint inhibitors for paediatric cancers is the lack of neoantigens (based on mutations) and corresponding antigen-specific T cells. Progress critically depends on understanding the immune macroenvironment and microenvironment and the ability of the adaptive immune system to recognise paediatric cancers in the absence of high neoantigen burden. Future clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors in children need to build upon strong biological hypotheses that take into account the distinctive immunobiology of childhood cancers in comparison to that of checkpoint inhibitor responsive adult cancers.

Orphan Drug Regulation: A missed opportunity for children and adolescents with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncology represents a major sector in the field of orphan drug development in Europe. The objective was to evaluate whether children and adolescents with cancer benefited from the Orphan Drug Regulation. METHODS: Data on orphan drug designations (ODDs) and registered orphan drugs from 8th August 2000 to 10th September 2016 were collected from the Community Register of medicinal products for human use. Assessment history, product information and existence of paediatric investigation plans were searched and retrieved from the European Medicine Agency website. RESULTS: Over 16 years, 272 of 657 oncology ODDs (41%) concerned a malignant condition occurring both in adults and children. The five most common were acute myeloid leukaemia, high-grade glioma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, graft-versus-host disease and soft-tissue sarcomas. 74% of 31 marketing authorisations (MAs) for an indication both in adults and children (26 medicines) had no information for paediatric use in their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) at the time of the first MA. Furthermore, 68% still have no paediatric information in their most recently updated SmPC, at a median of 7 years after. Only 15 ODDs (2%) pertained to a malignancy occurring specifically in children and only two drugs received an MA: Unituxin for high-risk neuroblastoma and Votubia for sub-ependymal giant-cell astrocytoma. CONCLUSION: The Orphan Drug Regulation failed to promote the development of innovative therapies for malignancies occurring in children. Major delays and waivers occurred through the application of the Paediatric Medicines Regulation. The European regulatory environment needs to be improved to accelerate innovation for children and adolescents dying of cancer.

Creating a unique, multi-stakeholder Paediatric Oncology Platform to improve drug development for children and adolescents with cancer.

Seven years after the launch of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, limited progress in paediatric oncology drug development remains a major concern amongst stakeholders - academics, industry, regulatory authorities, parents, patients and caregivers. Restricted increases in early phase paediatric oncology trials, legal requirements and regulatory pressure to propose early Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs), missed opportunities to explore new drugs potentially relevant for paediatric malignancies, lack of innovative trial designs and no new incentives to develop drugs against specific paediatric targets are some unmet needs. Better access to new anti-cancer drugs for paediatric clinical studies and improved collaboration between stakeholders are essential. The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF), previously Biotherapy Development Association (BDA), with Innovative Therapy for Children with Cancer Consortium (ITCC), European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) and European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents (ENCCA) has created a unique Paediatric Oncology Platform, involving multiple stakeholders and the European Union (EU) Commission, with an urgent remit to improve paediatric oncology drug development. The Paediatric Oncology Platform proposes to recommend immediate changes in the implementation of the Regulation and set the framework for its 2017 revision; initiatives to incentivise drug development against specific paediatric oncology targets, and repositioning of drugs not developed in adults. Underpinning these changes is a strategy for mechanism of action and biology driven selection and prioritisation of potential paediatric indications rather than the current process based on adult cancer indications. Pre-competitive research and drug prioritisation, early portfolio evaluation, cross-industry cooperation and multi-compound/sponsor trials are being explored, from which guidance for innovative trial designs will be provided.