Molecular Profiling-Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT): A Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial.

This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS: Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION: Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

Phase 0 clinical trials: conceptions and misconceptions.

Phase 0 clinical trials, developed in response to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recent exploratory Investigational New Drug (IND) guidance, are intended to expedite the clinical evaluation of new molecular entities. The exploratory IND supports the performance of first-in-human testing of new investigational agents at subtherapeutic doses based on reduced manufacturing and toxicologic requirements, allowing the demonstration of drug-target effects and assessment of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships in humans earlier in clinical development. The objectives of a phase 0 cancer clinical trial are to establish at the very earliest opportunity-before large numbers of patients have been accrued and exposed to potential drug-associated toxicity-whether an agent is modulating its target in a tumor, and consequently whether further clinical development is warranted. We review here the fundamental requirements of clinical studies conducted under an exploratory IND and address some common misconceptions regarding oncologic phase 0 trials.

Phase 0 clinical trials in cancer drug development: from FDA guidance to clinical practice.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently introduced the Exploratory Investigational New Drug Guidance to expedite the clinical evaluation of new therapeutic and imaging agents. Early clinical studies performed under the auspices of this guidance, so-called "Phase 0" trials, have been initiated at the National Cancer Institute to integrate qualified pharmacodynamic biomarker assays into first-in-human cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents. The goal of this integration is to perform molecular proof-of-concept investigations at the earliest stage of cancer drug development. Phase 0 trials do not offer any possibility of patient benefit; instead, intensive, real-time pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic analyses of patient tumor samples and/or surrogate tissues are performed to inform subsequent trials. Phase 0 studies do not replace formal Phase I drug safety testing and require a substantial investment of resources in assay development early on; however, they offer the promise of more rational selection of agents for further, large-scale development as well as the molecular identification of potential therapeutic failures early in the development process.