Evolution of the Innovative Therapies for Children With Cancer Consortium Trial Portfolio for Drug Development for Children With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium is to improve access to novel therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. The evolution of the ITCC clinical trial portfolio since 2003 was reviewed. METHODS: All ITCC-labeled phase I/II trials opened between January 1, 2003 and February 3, 2018 were analyzed in two periods (2003-2010 and 2011-2018), and data were extracted from the ITCC database, regulatory agencies' registries, and publications. RESULTS: Sixty-one trials (62% industry-sponsored) enrolled 3,198 patients. The number of trials in the second period increased by almost 300% (16 v 45). All biomarker-driven trials (n = 14) were conducted in the second period. The use of rolling six and model-based designs increased (1 of 9, 11% v 21 of 31, 68%), and that of 3 + 3 designs decreased (5 of 9, 55% v 5 of 31, 16%; P = .014). The proportion of studies evaluating chemotherapeutics only decreased (5 of 16, 31% v 4 of 45, 9%), the proportion of single-agent targeted therapies did not change (9 of 16, 56.2% v 24 of 45, 53.3%), the proportion of combination targeted therapies trials increased (2 of 16, 12%, v 17 of 45, 38%), the proportion of randomized phase II trials increased (1 of 7, 14% v 8 of 14, 57%). More trials were part of a pediatric investigation plan in the second period (4 of 16, 25% v 21 of 45, 46%). The median time for Ethics Committees' approvals was 1.7 times longer for academic compared with industry-sponsored trials. CONCLUSION: This study reports a shift in the paradigm of early drug development for childhood cancers, with more biologically relevant targets evaluated in biomarker-driven trials or in combination with other therapies and with more model-based or randomized designs and a greater focus on fulfilling regulatory requirements. Improvement of trial setup and recruitment could increase the number of patients benefiting from novel agents.

Chemo-immunotherapy with dinutuximab beta in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma: does chemotherapy backbone matter?

BACKGROUND: Addition of anti-GD2 antibodies to temozolomide-based chemotherapy has demonstrated increased antitumor activity and progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma. However, chemo-immunotherapy is not yet approved for this indication. This study presents the chemo-immunotherapy experience in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma treated within the off-label use program of the Neuroblastoma Committee of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology (SFCE). METHODS: Dinutuximab beta (dB) was administered alongside temozolomide-topotecan (TOTEM) or temozolomide-irinotecan (TEMIRI) at first disease relapse/progression or topotecan-cyclophosphamide (TopoCyclo) at further relapse/progression. Real-world data on demographics, treatment, antitumor activity and safety was collected from all patients after inclusion in SACHA-France (NCT04477681), a prospective national registry, which documents safety and efficacy data on innovative anticancer therapies prescribed to patients ≤ 25 years old as compassionate or off-label use. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and July 2023, 39 patients with confirmed relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma (median age 6 years, range 1-24) were treated with dB+TopoCyclo (n = 24) or dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI (n = 15) across 17 centers. In total, 163 chemo-immunotherapy cycles were administered, main toxicities were mild or moderate, with higher incidence of hematological adverse drug reactions with dB+TopoCyclo than dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI. Objective response rate was 42% for dB+TopoCyclo (CI95% 22-63%) and 40% for dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI (CI95% 16-68%). CONCLUSION: Similar objective response rates for dB+TopoCyclo and dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma emphasize the importance of chemo-immunotherapy, irrespective of the chemotherapy backbone.

Clinical trial inclusion in patients with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma following the European Precision Cancer Medicine trial MAPPYACTS.

INTRODUCTION: Despite poor survival for patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma, only 10-16% of patients are reported to be included in early phase trials. This study aimed to explore the impact of molecular profiling within the prospective precision cancer medicine trial MAPPYACTS (NCT02613962) on subsequent early phase trial recruitment and treatment by matched targeted therapies in this population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical data from all French patients with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma enrolled in MAPPYACTS were analyzed for subsequent matched/non-matched targeted treatment based on clinical tumor board (CMTB) recommendations. RESULTS: From 93 patients with neuroblastoma included in French centers, 78 (84%) underwent whole exome and RNA sequencing and were discussed in the CMTB. Higher rate of successful sequencing analysis was observed in patients with relapsed disease compared to those with refractory disease (p = 0.0002). Among the 50 patients that presented with a new disease relapse/progression after the CMTB recommendations, 35 patients (70%) had at least one actionable alteration identified on the tumor at the time of relapse. Eighteen patients (36%) were included in an early phase clinical trial, 11 of these with a matched agent, 7 with a non-matched treatment; 13 patients were included in the AcSé ESMART trial. Five patients (10%) received a matched targeted therapy outside a clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Patients with neuroblastoma in the European MAPPYACTS trial were more likely to be included in early phase trials compared to previous reports. Early deep sequencing at first treatment failure, comprehensive therapeutic discussions in molecular tumor boards and innovative trials like AcSé -ESMART improve access to innovative therapies for patients with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02613962.

Phase I/II Study of the WEE1 Inhibitor Adavosertib (AZD1775) in Combination with Carboplatin in Children with Advanced Malignancies: Arm C of the AcSé-ESMART Trial.

PURPOSE: AcSé-ESMART Arm C aimed to define the recommended dose and activity of the WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib in combination with carboplatin in children and young adults with molecularly enriched recurrent/refractory malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adavosertib was administered orally, twice every day on Days 1 to 3 and carboplatin intravenously on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle, starting at 100 mg/m2/dose and AUC 5, respectively. Patients were enriched for molecular alterations in cell cycle and/or homologous recombination (HR). RESULTS: Twenty patients (median age: 14.0 years; range: 3.4-23.5) were included; 18 received 69 treatment cycles. Dose-limiting toxicities were prolonged grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia requiring transfusions, leading to two de-escalations to adavosertib 75 mg/m2/dose and carboplatin AUC 4; no recommended phase II dose was defined. Main treatment-related toxicities were hematologic and gastrointestinal. Adavosertib exposure in children was equivalent to that in adults; both doses achieved the cell kill target. Overall response rate was 11% (95% confidence interval, 0.0-25.6) with partial responses in 2 patients with neuroblastoma. One patient with medulloblastoma experienced unconfirmed partial response and 5 patients had stable disease beyond four cycles. Seven of these eight patients with clinical benefit had alterations in HR, replication stress, and/or RAS pathway genes with or without TP53 alterations, whereas TP53 pathway alterations alone (8/10) or no relevant alterations (2/10) were present in the 10 patients without benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib-carboplatin combination exhibited significant hematologic toxicity. Activity signals and identified potential biomarkers suggest further studies with less hematotoxic DNA-damaging therapy in molecularly enriched pediatric cancers.

Impact of ACCELERATE Paediatric Strategy Forums: a review of the value of multi-stakeholder meetings in oncology drug development.

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm.

Rescuing Drugs That are Discontinued in Adult Oncology Development for the Benefit of Children and Adolescents With Cancer - An ACCELERATE Multistakeholder Consensus.

Better therapies for childhood cancer remain an unmet need to improve the dismal prognosis of certain malignancies and to reduce the burden of toxicity. Rescuing discontinued or shelved drugs for children, adolescents, and young adults is a strategy to identify new uses for approved or investigational medicines outside the scope of their original medical indication. Our proposed multistakeholder consensus focuses on the development of innovative, patent-protected targeted agents, sourced from previously shelved or discontinued programs that have the potential to provide significant benefit to underserved patient populations, with unmet medical needs. There are several challenges to continuing/rescuing drugs for pediatric oncology development, which include the lack of information for decision making, corporate strategy considerations underlying the decision to invest in pediatric development, and the contracting and technology transfer complexities required to enable divestment and subsequent development. The multistakeholder approach for drug development has the advantage of conveying a consensus among academia, patient advocates, and importantly industry itself. We propose three areas of action to facilitate rescuing potentially beneficial drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: (i) initiatives to provide information to companies considering developing these drugs and a standards framework; (ii) incentives both in Europe and in the United States to encourage companies to develop pediatric-only drugs, with the reform of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation posing an important opportunity; and (iii) communication of the issues to all stakeholders. Ultimately, this will benefit children and adolescents with cancer.

The organization of care in pediatric radiotherapy across SIOP Europe affiliated centers: A multicenter survey in the framework of the 'Joint Action on Rare Cancers' project.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To reduce inequalities among SIOPE-affiliated countries, standard and optional levels to deliver 'Good Clinical Practice' compliant treatment in pediatric radiation oncology have been published. The aim of this project was to map the availability of pediatric radiotherapy resources across SIOPE-affiliated radiotherapy departments. MATERIALS/METHODS: An online survey with 34 questions was distributed to 246 radiotherapy departments across 35 SIOPE-affiliated countries. In addition to demographic data, 15 general items related to the organization of the radiotherapy process, and 10 radiotherapy-specific items were defined. For each of the 25 items, sum scores were calculated per center and country. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze associations. RESULTS: Between March-June 2019, 121 departments (49 %) out of 31 countries (89 %) completed the survey. At center level, involvement of core disciplines in tumor boards (28 %), and integration of dedicated pediatric radiation therapy technologists (24 %) are limited, while rare & complex brachytherapy procedures are performed in many centers (23 %). For general and radiotherapy-specific items respectively, a relevant variation of sum scores was observed across countries (Δgeneral: ≤10 points; ΔRT_specific: ≤5 points) and among centers within a country (Δgeneral: ≤9 points; ΔRT_specific: ≤6 points). Sum scores for general and radiotherapy-specific items were higher in countries with a high-income (p < 0.01) and higher health development index (p < 0.01). A larger annual number of irradiated pediatric patients was associated with higher sum scores for general items (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrates the disparities in organization of pediatric radiotherapy departments between SIOPE-affiliated countries and centers within the same country. Investment is needed to reduce inequalities in pediatric radiotherapy care.

Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in ALK-positive systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in children, adolescents, and adult patients: results of the French AcSé-crizotinib trial.

BACKGROUND: The French phase II AcSé-crizotinib trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of crizotinib in patients with ALK, ROS1, and MET-driven malignancies, including ALK-positive anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALK+ ALCL). METHODS: ALK+ ALCL patients 12 months or older with measurable disease and no standard care options available received crizotinib twice daily at 165 mg/m2 in children and adolescents and 250 mg in adults. The primary end-point was the response rate at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enroled between February 2014 and March 2018. Three patients who were not treated were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 19 years. The median previous line of chemotherapy was two. In the 24 patients with an evaluable response, the response rate at 8 weeks was 67% (95% CI: 47-82%). All patients discontinued crizotinib after a median treatment duration of 3.7 months: eight for progression, two for adverse events (AEs) related to prior treatments, and 15 by choice, including six for allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The median follow-up was 45 months. Nine patients experienced an event: eight relapses (seven after crizotinib discontinuation and one after dose reduction), and one died in complete remission. The median duration of response was 43.3 months (95% CI: 8.3-not reached). The 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates were 40% (95% CI: 23-59%) and 63% (95% CI: 43-79%). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 32% of patients. CONCLUSION: Crizotinib shows efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in ALK+ ALCL relapsed/refractory patients. However, a large proportion of patients experience a relapse after crizotinib discontinuation. Future studies will assess if prolonged ALK inhibitor exposure has curative potential without consolidation.

Measuring Safety and Outcomes for the Use of Compassionate and Off-Label Therapies for Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Cancer in the SACHA-France Study.

Importance: Innovative anticancer therapies for children, adolescents, and young adults are regularly prescribed outside their marketing authorization or through compassionate use programs. However, no clinical data of these prescriptions is systematically collected. Objectives: To measure the feasibility of the collection of clinical safety and efficacy data of compassionate and off-label innovative anticancer therapies, with adequate pharmacovigilance declaration to inform further use and development of these medicines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients treated at French pediatric oncology centers from March 2020 to June 2022. Eligible patients were aged 25 years or younger with pediatric malignant neoplasms (solid tumors, brain tumors, or hematological malignant neoplasms) or related conditions who received compassionate use or off-label innovative anticancer therapies. Follow up was conducted through August 10, 2022. Exposures: All patients treated in a French Society of Pediatric Oncology (SFCE) center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Collection of adverse drug reactions and anticancer activity attributable to the treatment. Results: A total of 366 patients were included, with a median age of 11.1 years (range, 0.2-24.6 years); 203 of 351 patients (58%) in the final analysis were male. Fifty-five different drugs were prescribed, half of patients (179 of 351 [51%]) were prescribed these drugs within a compassionate use program, mainly as single agents (74%) and based on a molecular alteration (65%). Main therapies were MEK/BRAF inhibitors followed by multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In 34% of patients at least a grade 2 clinical and/or grade 3 laboratory adverse drug reaction was reported, leading to delayed therapy and permanent discontinuation of the innovative therapy in 13% and 5% of patients, respectively. Objective responses were reported in 57 of 230 patients (25%) with solid tumors, brain tumors, and lymphomas. Early identification of exceptional responses supported the development of specific clinical trials for this population. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of the SACHA-France (Secured Access to Innovative Medicines for Children with Cancer) suggested the feasibility of prospective multicenter clinical safety and activity data collection for compassionate and off-label new anticancer medicines. This study allowed adequate pharmacovigilance reporting and early identification of exceptional responses allowing further pediatric drug development within clinical trials; based on this experience, this study will be enlarged to the international level.

Predictive factors of long-term follow-up attendance in very long-term childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) clinics have been developed but only some childhood cancer survivors (CCS) attend long-term follow-up (LTFU). OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence LTFU attendance. METHODS: Five-year CCS treated for a solid tumor or lymphoma in Gustave Roussy before 2000, included in the FCCSS cohort (French Childhood Cancer Survivor Study), aged >18 years and alive at the date of the LTFU Clinic opening (January 2012) were invited to a LTFU visit. Factors associated with attendance at the LTFU clinic between 2012 and 2020 were estimated using logistic regression analyses. Analyses included different types of factors: clinical (tumor characteristics, cancer treatments, late effects), medical (medical expenses were used as a proxy of survivor's health status), social (deprivation index based on census-tract data relating to income, educational level, proportion of blue-collar workers, and unemployed people living in the area of residence), and spatial (distance to the LTFU clinic). RESULTS: Among 2341 CCS contacted (55% males, mean age at study, 45 years; SD ± 10 years; mean age at diagnosis, 6 years; SD ± 5 years), 779 (33%) attended at least one LTFU visit. Initial cancer-related factors associated with LTFU visit attendance were: treatment with both radiotherapy and chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.02; 95% CI, 2.11-7.70), bone sarcoma (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.56-3.78), central nervous system primitive tumor (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67), and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.34-3.20). Late effects (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.31-2.20), highest medical expenses (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.22), living in the most advantaged area (OR vs. the most deprived area = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.22), and shorter distance from LTFU care center (<12 miles) also increased attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are apparently healthy as well as socially disadvantaged and living far away from the center are less likely to attend LTFU care. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among 2341 adult childhood cancer survivors contacted between 2012 and 2020, 33% attended at least one long-term follow-up visit. Clinical factors related to attendance were multimodal treatment of first cancer (combining chemotherapy and radiotherapy), stem cell transplant, type of diagnosis (bone tumor and central nervous system primitive tumor), late effects (at least one disease among second malignancy, heart disease, or stroke), and highest medical expenses. In addition, the study identified social and spatial inequalities related to attendance, with independent negative effects of distance and social deprivation on attendance, even though the medical costs related to the long-term follow-up examinations are covered by the French social security system.

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.

Longitudinal characterization of primary osteosarcoma and derived subcutaneous and orthotopic relapsed patient-derived xenograft models.

Osteosarcoma is a rare bone cancer in adolescents and young adults with a dismal prognosis because of metastatic disease and chemoresistance. Despite multiple clinical trials, no improvement in outcome has occurred in decades. There is an urgent need to better understand resistant and metastatic disease and to generate in vivo models from relapsed tumors. We developed eight new patient-derived xenograft (PDX) subcutaneous and orthotopic/paratibial models derived from patients with recurrent osteosarcoma and compared the genetic and transcriptomic landscapes of the disease progression at diagnosis and relapse with the matching PDX. Whole exome sequencing showed that driver and copy-number alterations are conserved from diagnosis to relapse, with the emergence of somatic alterations of genes mostly involved in DNA repair, cell cycle checkpoints, and chromosome organization. All PDX patients conserve most of the genetic alterations identified at relapse. At the transcriptomic level, tumor cells maintain their ossification, chondrocytic, and trans-differentiation programs during progression and implantation in PDX models, as identified at the radiological and histological levels. A more complex phenotype, like the interaction with immune cells and osteoclasts or cancer testis antigen expression, seemed conserved and was hardly identifiable by histology. Despite NSG mouse immunodeficiency, four of the PDX models partially reconstructed the vascular and immune-microenvironment observed in patients, among which the macrophagic TREM2/TYROBP axis expression, recently linked to immunosuppression. Our multimodal analysis of osteosarcoma progression and PDX models is a valuable resource to understand resistance and metastatic spread mechanisms, as well as for the exploration of novel therapeutic strategies for advanced osteosarcoma.

Prognostic Value of Neurotrophic Tyrosine Receptor Kinase Gene Fusions in Solid Tumors for Overall Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions in solid tumors are predictive biomarkers for targeted inhibition across a number of adult and pediatric tumor types. However, despite robust clinical response to tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors, the natural history and prognostic implications of NTRK fusions in solid tumors are poorly understood. It is important to evaluate their prognostic significance on survival to provide some context to the clinical effectiveness observed in clinical trials of TRK-targeted therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed to identify studies comparing the overall survival (OS) of patients with NTRK fusion-positive (NTRK+) versus NTRK fusion-negative (NTRK-) tumors. Five retrospective matched case-control studies published before 11 August 2022 were assessed for inclusion, and three were selected for the meta-analysis (sample size: 69 NTRK+, 444 NTRK-). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies tool. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Bayesian random-effects model. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis, the median follow-up ranged from 2 to 14 years and the median OS was between 10.1 and 12.7 months (where reported). Comparing patients with tumors NTRK+ and NTRK-, the pooled HR estimate for OS was 1.51 (95% credible interval, 1.01 to 2.29). The patients analyzed had no previous or current exposure to TRK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: In patients not treated with TRK inhibitor therapies, those with NTRK+ solid tumors have a 50% increased risk of mortality within 10 years from diagnosis or the start of standard therapy compared with those with NTRK- status. Although this is the most robust estimate of the comparative survival rate to date, further studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Combination Early-Phase Trials of Anticancer Agents in Children and Adolescents.

PURPOSE: There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders. METHODS: After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved. RESULTS: Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements. CONCLUSION: An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP. RESULTS: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Individualizing busulfan dose in specific populations and evaluating the risk of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions.

INTRODUCTION: Busulfan is an alkylating agent widely used in the conditioning of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation possessing a complex metabolism and a large interindividual and intra-individual variability, especially in children. Combined with the strong rationale of busulfan PK/PD relationships, factors altering its clearance (e.g. weight, age, and GST-A genetic polymorphism mainly) can also affect clinical outcomes. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on busulfan pharmacokinetics, its pharmacokinetics variabilities in pediatric populations, drug-drug interactions (DDI), and their consequences regarding dose individualization. This review was based on medical literature up until October 2021. EXPERT OPINION: To ensure effective busulfan exposure in pediatrics, different weight-based nomograms have been established to determine busulfan dosage and provided improved results (65-80% of patients correctly exposed). In addition to nomograms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of busulfan measuring plasmatic concentrations to estimate busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters can be used. TDM is now widely carried out in routine practices and aims to ensure the targeting of the reported therapeutic windows by individualizing busulfan dosing based on the clearance estimations from a previous dose.

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.

Impact of the EU Paediatric Medicine Regulation on new anti-cancer medicines for the treatment of children and adolescents.

The European Paediatric Medicine Regulation was launched in 2007, aiming to provide better medicines for children. However, its benefit for paediatric patients with cancer has been questioned and the European Paediatric and Orphan Regulations have been under review since November, 2020. To ascertain the effect of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, all paediatric anti-cancer medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency from 1995 to 2022 were identified and reviewed using the agency's public assessment reports, and all Paediatric Investigation Plans granted since 2007 were analysed. 16 new molecular entities (NMEs; ie, a drug that contains an active moiety that had never been approved before) have been approved since the regulation was launched in 2007. The number of paediatric marketing authorisations increased from 2007 but represented the same 17% of all anti-cancer drug marketing authorisations before and after 2007. After 2007, nine (56%) of 16 NMEs were first authorised both in adults and children. For seven NMEs, a first paediatric indication was approved with a median lag time of 6·4 years (range 1·2-21·5 years) after the first authorisation in adults. Half of NMEs were authorised for the treatment of malignancies responsible for only 5·4% of all European childhood cancer deaths, including three medicines for melanoma and thyroid cancer-adult cancers occurring very rarely in children. The increased number of paediatric anti-cancer NMEs after 2007 is a result of the major increase in new medicines authorised for adult cancers since 2005 rather than a direct effect of the Paediatric Regulation. Paediatric development of these NMEs was driven by their adult market and did not address major unmet medical needs of children and adolescents with cancer. An improved, fit-for-purpose regulatory environment that incentivises paediatric drug development based on mechanism of action, better incentives, and a systematic multi-stakeholder engagement, with greater investment from industry, public funding, and non-governmental organisations, will increase the number of new medicines approved in the future to cure more children and adolescents with cancer.