Handling Incomplete or Late-Onset Toxicities in Early-Phase Dose-Finding Clinical Trials: Current Practice and Future Prospects.

PURPOSE: The way late-onset toxicities are managed can affect trial outcomes and participant safety. Specifically, participants often might not have completed their entire follow-up period to observe any toxicities before new participants would be recruited. We conducted a methodological review of published early-phase dose-finding clinical trials that used designs accounting for partial and complete toxicity information, aiming to understand (1) how such designs were implemented and reported and (2) if sufficient information was provided to enable the replicability of trial results. METHODS: Until March 26, 2023, we identified 141 trials using the rolling 6 design, the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TITE-CRM), the TITE-CRM with cycle information, the TITE Bayesian optimal interval design, the TITE cumulative cohort design, and the rapid enrollment design. Clinical settings, design parameters, practical considerations, and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) information were extracted from these published trials. RESULTS: The TITE-CRM (61, 43.3%) and the rolling 6 design (76, 53.9%) were most frequently implemented in practice. Trials using the TITE-CRM had longer DLT assessment windows beyond the first cycle compared with the rolling 6 design (52.5% v 6.6%). Most trials implementing the TITE-CRM (91.8%, 56 of 61) failed to describe essential parameters in the protocols or the study result papers. Only five TITE-CRM trials (8.2%, 5 of 61) reported sufficient information to enable replication of the final analysis. CONCLUSION: When compared with trials using the rolling 6 design, those implementing the TITE-CRM design exhibited notable deficiencies in reporting essential details necessary for reproducibility. Inadequate reporting quality of advanced model-based trial designs hinders their credibility. We provide recommendations that can improve transparency, reproducibility, and accurate interpretation of the results for such designs.

Assessing the reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols: a methodological review.

Background: The paradigm of early phase dose-finding trials has evolved in recent years. Innovative dose-finding designs and protocols which combine phases I and II are becoming more popular in health research. However, the quality of these trial protocols is unknown due to a lack of specific reporting guidelines. Here, we evaluated the reporting quality of dose-finding trial protocols. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of oncology and non-oncology early phase dose-finding trial protocols posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2017-2023. A checklist of items comprising: 1) the original 33-items from the SPIRIT 2013 Statement and 2) additional items unique to dose-finding trials were used to assess reporting quality. The primary endpoint was the overall proportion of adequately reported items. This study was registered with PROSPERO (no: CRD42022314572). Finding: A total of 106 trial protocols were included in the study with the rule-based 3 + 3 being the most used trial design (39.6%). Eleven model-based and model-assisted designs were identified in oncology trials only (11/58, 19.0%). The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65.1% (95%CI: 63.9-66.3%). However, the reporting quality of each individual item varied substantially (range 9.4%-100%). Oncology study protocols showed lower reporting quality than non-oncology. In the multivariable analysis, trials with larger sample sizes and industry funding were associated with higher proportions of adequately reported items (all p-values <0.05). Interpretation: The overall reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols is suboptimal (65.1%). There is a need for improved completeness and transparency in early phase dose-finding trial protocols to facilitate rigorous trial conduct, reproducibility and external review. Funding: None.

Implementation of platform trials in the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review.

MOTIVATION: Platform designs - master protocols that allow for new treatment arms to be added over time - have gained considerable attention in recent years. Between 2001 and 2019, 16 platform trials were initiated globally. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have provided a new motivation for these designs. We conducted a rapid review to quantify and describe platform trials used in COVID-19. METHODS: We cross-referenced PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cytel COVID-19 Clinical Trials Tracker to identify platform trials, defined by their stated ability to add future arms. RESULTS: We identified 58 COVID-19 platform trials globally registered between January 2020 and May 2021. According to trial registries, 16 trials have added new therapies (median 3, IQR 4) and 11 have dropped arms (median 3, IQR 2.5). About 50% of trials publicly share their protocol, and 31 trials (53%) intend to share trial data. Forty-nine trials (84%) explicitly report adaptive features, and 21 trials (36%) state Bayesian methods. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, there has been a surge in the number of platform trials compared to historical use. While transparency in statistical methods and clarity of data sharing policies needs improvement, platform trials appear particularly well-suited for rapid evidence generation. Trials secured funding quickly and many succeeded in adding new therapies in a short time period, thus demonstrating the potential for these trial designs to be implemented beyond the pandemic. The evidence gathered here may provide ample insight to further inform operational, statistical, and regulatory aspects of future platform trial conduct.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use. METHODS: DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted. RESULTS: 5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected. CONCLUSIONS: PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.