Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with Lung Cancer.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

Expanding Access to Lung Cancer Clinical Trials by Reducing the Use of Restrictive Exclusion Criteria: Perspectives of a Multistakeholder Working Group.

Low rates of adult patient participation have been a persistent problem in cancer clinical trials and have continued to be a barrier to efficient drug development. The routine use of significant exclusion criteria has contributed to this problem by limiting participation in studies and creating significant clinical differences between the study cohorts and the real-world cancer patient populations. These routine exclusions also unnecessarily restrict opportunities for many patients to access potentially promising new therapies during clinical development. Multiple efforts are underway to broaden eligibility criteria, allowing more patients to enroll in studies and generating more robust data regarding the effect of novel therapies in the population at large. Focusing specifically on lung cancer as an example, a multistakeholder working group empaneled by the LUNGevity Foundation identified 14 restrictive and potentially outdated exclusion criteria that appear frequently in lung cancer clinical trials. As a part of the project, the group evaluated data from multiple recent lung cancer studies to ascertain the extent to which these 14 criteria appeared in study protocols and played a role in excluding patients (screen failures). The present report describes the working group's efforts to limit the use of these routine exclusions and presents clinical justifications for reducing the use of 14 criteria as routine exclusions in lung cancer studies, potentially expanding trial eligibility and improving the generalizability of the results from lung cancer trials.

Combined chemoradiotherapy regimens of paclitaxel and carboplatin for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II locally advanced multi-modality protocol.

PURPOSE: This phase II noncomparative randomized trial was conducted to determine the optimal sequencing and integration of paclitaxel/carboplatin with standard daily thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), in patients with locally advanced unresected stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Survival data were compared with historical standard sequential chemoradiotherapy data from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresected stages IIIA and IIIB NSCLC, with Karnofsky performance status > or = 70% and weight loss < or = 10%, received two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration time curve [AUC] = 6) followed by TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 1, sequential) or two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6) followed by weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2) with concurrent TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 2, induction/concurrent), or weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2)/TRT (63.0 Gy) followed by two cycles of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6; arm 3, concurrent/consolidation). RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 39.6 months, median overall survival was 13.0, 12.7, and 16.3 months for arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During induction chemotherapy, grade 3/4 granulocytopenia occurred in 32% and 38% of patients on study arms 1 and 2, respectively. The most common locoregional grade 3/4 toxicity during and after TRT was esophagitis, which was more pronounced with the administration of concurrent chemoradiotherapy on study arms 2 and 3 (19% and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concurrent weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin, and TRT followed by consolidation seems to be associated with the best outcome, although this schedule was associated with greater toxicity.