FDA un­veils 5 guid­ances on broad­en­ing can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty

As part of a push to trans­form clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria that have been ac­cept­ed over time with­out a clear sci­en­tif­ic or clin­i­cal ra­tio­nale, the FDA on Tues­day pub­lished four draft guid­ance doc­u­ments on can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria and one fi­nal guid­ance on in­clud­ing ado­les­cents in adult on­col­o­gy tri­als.

The four drafts, de­vel­oped by the FDA with in­put from the Amer­i­can So­ci­ety of Clin­i­cal On­col­o­gy and Friends of Can­cer Re­search, fo­cus on min­i­mum age for pe­di­atric pa­tients; pa­tients with HIV, he­pati­tis B or C virus­es; pa­tients with or­gan dys­func­tion or pri­or or cur­rent ma­lig­nan­cies; and pa­tients with brain metas­tases.

“Over­ly re­stric­tive el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria may slow pa­tient ac­cru­al, lim­it pa­tients’ ac­cess to clin­i­cal tri­als and lead to tri­al re­sults that don’t ful­ly rep­re­sent treat­ment ef­fects in the pa­tient pop­u­la­tion that will ul­ti­mate­ly re­ceive the drug,” FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb said, not­ing how the draft guid­ances of­fer new rec­om­men­da­tions for broad­en­ing can­cer tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria.

Min­i­mum Age for Pe­di­atric Pa­tients

This sev­en-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how spon­sors seek­ing to in­clude pe­di­atric pa­tient pop­u­la­tions in adult can­cer tri­als should eval­u­ate pe­di­atric for­mu­la­tions, tak­ing in­to ac­count the age, size, phys­i­o­log­ic con­di­tion and the treat­ment needs of pe­di­atric pa­tients.

The draft notes the types of ev­i­dence that could sup­port in­clu­sion of pa­tients from two years of age to un­der age twelve, clar­i­fy­ing that chil­dren un­der the age of two “may be par­tic­u­lar­ly vul­ner­a­ble to ex­pect­ed and unan­tic­i­pat­ed tox­i­c­i­ty due to de­vel­op­men­tal con­cerns and age-de­pen­dent mat­u­ra­tion of meta­bol­ic en­zyme sys­tems and or­gan func­tion, chil­dren < 2 years should not be in­clud­ed in adult can­cer tri­als. In rare in­stances, in­fants be­yond the neona­tal pe­ri­od may be ap­pro­pri­ate can­di­dates for se­lect new drugs. How­ev­er, en­roll­ment of chil­dren < 2 years of age is best re­served for ex­cep­tion­al cas­es and on­ly af­ter con­sul­ta­tion with the FDA.”

In ad­di­tion, the draft fea­tures po­ten­tial ways to in­clude pe­di­atric pa­tients in ear­ly phase tri­als af­ter a suf­fi­cient num­ber of adult pa­tients have been eval­u­at­ed to pro­vide ad­e­quate safe­ty and tox­i­c­i­ty da­ta.

For late-phase tri­als, the draft says: “The min­i­mum age of el­i­gi­bil­i­ty spec­i­fied in late-phase tri­als should be tai­lored to the bi­ol­o­gy of the dis­ease un­der study, the sci­en­tif­ic ob­jec­tives of the tri­al, and the ex­ist­ing da­ta re­gard­ing the mech­a­nism of ac­tion and safe­ty pro­file of the drug.”

Pa­tients with HIV, He­pati­tis B Virus or He­pati­tis C Virus In­fec­tions

This eight-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how ex­pand­ing can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty to be more in­clu­sive of pa­tients with HIV, HBV, or HCV in­fec­tions “is jus­ti­fied in many cas­es, and may ac­cel­er­ate the de­vel­op­ment of ef­fec­tive ther­a­pies in can­cer pa­tients with these chron­ic in­fec­tions.”

The rec­om­men­da­tions in the draft for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with can­cer and con­cur­rent HIV in­fec­tion “are fo­cused on eval­u­a­tion of im­mune func­tion and HIV ther­a­py,” while the rec­om­men­da­tions for those “with can­cer who have ev­i­dence of chron­ic HBV or with cur­rent or his­to­ry of HCV are fo­cused on liv­er-re­lat­ed lab­o­ra­to­ries and HBV/HCV ther­a­py.”

Or­gan Dys­func­tion or Pri­or or Con­cur­rent Ma­lig­nan­cies

This six-page draft guid­ance fea­tures rec­om­men­da­tions for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with or­gan dys­func­tion in can­cer clin­i­cal tri­als, fo­cus­ing on re­nal func­tion, car­diac func­tion and he­pat­ic func­tion, in ad­di­tion to rec­om­men­da­tions for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with can­cer who have a his­to­ry of pri­or or con­cur­rent sec­ond pri­ma­ry ma­lig­nan­cies.

“By ex­clud­ing in­di­vid­u­als from can­cer clin­i­cal tri­als who have ma­jor or­gan dys­func­tion or pre­vi­ous or con­cur­rent can­cers, tri­al re­cruit­ment fa­vors younger pa­tients, which may not be ful­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the pop­u­la­tion for whom the drug will be in­di­cat­ed,” the FDA ex­plains.

“For ex­am­ple, in ini­tial dose find­ing or pre­lim­i­nary ac­tiv­i­ty-es­ti­mat­ing or proof-of-con­cept stud­ies, pa­tients with a his­to­ry of pri­or or con­cur­rent sec­ond pri­ma­ry ma­lig­nan­cies should not be ex­clud­ed,” the draft says.

Brain Metas­tases

As about 70,000 pa­tients liv­ing with can­cer in the US are di­ag­nosed with brain metas­tases, this six-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how such pa­tients should be in­clud­ed in clin­i­cal tri­als to cre­ate a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty pro­file of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug while main­tain­ing pa­tient safe­ty.

“The in­ci­dence of brain metas­tases is in­creas­ing in pa­tients with cer­tain ma­lig­nan­cies such as melanoma, lung can­cer, and breast can­cer. How­ev­er, pa­tients with brain metas­tases have his­tor­i­cal­ly been ex­clud­ed from clin­i­cal tri­als due to con­cerns of poor func­tion­al sta­tus, short­ened life ex­pectan­cy, or in­creased risk of tox­i­c­i­ty,” the guid­ance says.

It al­so ex­plains how pa­tients with can­cers that metas­ta­size to the brain should be in­clud­ed in ear­ly phase tri­als “ei­ther in sep­a­rate co­horts or in co­horts with planned sub­set analy­ses to as­sess pre­lim­i­nary ef­fi­ca­cy and tox­i­c­i­ty in pa­tients with brain metas­tases. In cas­es where there is a strong ra­tio­nale for ex­clu­sion, the ra­tio­nale should be de­scribed in the tri­al pro­to­col.”

In­clud­ing Ado­les­cent Pa­tients in Adult On­col­o­gy Clin­i­cal Tri­als

This four-page fi­nal guid­ance pro­vides rec­om­men­da­tions for the ap­pro­pri­ate in­clu­sion cri­te­ria, dos­ing and phar­ma­co­ki­net­ic (PK) eval­u­a­tions, safe­ty mon­i­tor­ing, and eth­i­cal re­quire­ments for en­rolling ado­les­cent pa­tients in adult on­col­o­gy tri­als.

The FDA says that ado­les­cents should on­ly be en­rolled in first-in-hu­man or dose-es­ca­la­tion tri­als af­ter ini­tial adult PK and tox­i­c­i­ty da­ta are ob­tained. The agency al­so says that ado­les­cent pa­tients should on­ly be en­rolled in ear­ly phase tri­als when they have re­lapsed or re­frac­to­ry can­cer, or a can­cer with no cu­ra­tive stan­dard treat­ment avail­able.

As far as changes be­tween the draft and fi­nal, the FDA said: “All the pub­lic com­ments re­ceived on the draft guid­ance have been con­sid­ered and the guid­ance has been re­vised as ap­pro­pri­ate.”

First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.


Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Med­ical an­i­ma­tion: Mak­ing it eas­i­er for the site and the pa­tient to un­der­stand

Medical animation has in recent years become an increasingly important tool for conveying niche information to a varied audience, particularly to those audiences without expertise in the specialist area. Science programmes today, for example, have moved from the piece-to-camera of the university professor explaining how a complex disease mechanism works, to actually showing the viewer first-hand what it might look like to shrink ourselves down to the size of an ant’s foot, and travel inside the human body to witness these processes in action. Effectively communicating a complex disease pathophysiology, or the novel mechanism of action of a new drug, can be complex. This is especially difficult when the audience domain knowledge is limited or non-existent. Medical animation can help with this communication challenge in several ways.
Improved accessibility to visualisation
Visualisation is a core component of our ability to understand a concept. Ask 10 people to visualise an apple, and each will come up with a slightly different image, some apples smaller than others, some more round, some with bites taken. Acceptable, you say, we can move on to the next part of the story. Now ask 10 people to visualise how HIV’s capsid protein gets arranged into the hexamers and pentamers that form the viral capsid that holds HIV’s genetic material. This request may pose a challenge even to someone with some virology knowledge, and it is that inability to effectively visualise what is going on that holds us back from fully understanding the rest of the story. So how does medical animation help us to overcome this visualisation challenge?

Alice Shaw, Lung Cancer Foundation of America

Top ALK ex­pert and can­cer drug re­searcher Al­ice Shaw bids adieu to acad­e­mia, hel­lo to No­var­tis

Jay Bradner has recruited a marquee oncology drug researcher into the ranks of the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. Alice Shaw is jumping from prestigious posts intertwined through Mass General, Harvard and Dana-Farber to take the lead of NIBR’s translational clinical oncology group.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Christine Bunt, Robert Langer. Verseau

Armed with Langer tech and $50M, Verseau hails new check­point drugs un­leash­ing macrophages against can­cer

The rising popularity of CD47 has propelled the “don’t-eat-me” signal to household name status in the immuno-oncology world: By blocking that protein, the theory goes, one can stop cancer cells from fooling macrophages. But just as PD-(L)1 merely represents the most fruitful of all checkpoints regulating T cells, Verseau Therapeutics is convinced that CD47 is one of many regulators one can modulate to stir up or tame the immune system.

Hal Barron, GSK's president of R&D and CSO, speaks to Endpoints News founder and editor John Carroll in London at Endpoints' #UKBIO19 summit on October 8, 2019

[Video] Cel­e­brat­ing tri­al fail­ures, chang­ing the cul­ture and al­ly­ing with Cal­i­for­nia dream­ers: R&D chief Hal Bar­ron talks about a new era at GSK

Last week I had a chance to sit down with Hal Barron at Endpoints’ #UKBIO19 summit to discuss his views on R&D at GSK, a topic that has been central to his life since he took the top research post close to 2 years ago. During the conversation, Barron talked about changing the culture at GSK, a move that involves several new approaches — one of which involves celebrating their setbacks as they shift resources to the most promising programs in the pipeline. Barron also discussed his new alliances in the Bay Area — including his collaboration pact with Lyell, which we covered here — frankly assesses the pluses and minuses of the UK drug development scene, and talks about his plans for making GSK a much more effective drug developer.

This is one discussion you won’t want to miss. Insider and Enterprise subscribers can log-in to watch the video.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Mi­rati preps its first look at their KRAS G12C con­tender, and they have to clear a high bar for suc­cess

If you’re a big KRAS G12C fan, mark your calendars for October 28 at 4:20 pm EDT.

That’s when Mirati $MRTX will unveil its first peek at the early clinical data available on MRTX849 in presentations at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics in Boston.

Mirati has been experiencing the full effect of a rival’s initial success at targeting the G12C pocket found on KRAS, offering the biotech some support on the concept they’re after — and biotech fans a race to the top. Amgen made a big splash with its first positive snapshot on lung cancer, but deflated sky-high expectations as it proved harder to find similar benefits in other types of cancers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The FDA will hus­tle up an ex­pe­dit­ed re­view for As­traZeneca’s next shot at a block­buster can­cer drug fran­chise

AstraZeneca paid a hefty price to partner with Daiichi Sankyo on their experimental antibody drug conjugate for HER2 positive breast cancer. And they’ve been rewarded with a fast ride through the FDA, with a straight shot at creating another blockbuster oncology franchise.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sean Parker, AP

Sean Park­er helps cre­ate a CRISPRed cell ther­a­py 2.0 play — and he’s got a high-pro­file set of lead­ers on the team

You can rack up one more high-profile debut effort in the wave of activity forming around cell therapy 2.0. It’s another appealing Bay Area group that’s attracted some of the top hands in the business to a multi-year effort to create a breakthrough. And they have $85 million in hand to make that first big step to the clinic.

Today it’s Ken Drazan and the team at South San Francisco-based ArsenalBio that are coming from behind the curtain for a public bow, backed by billionaire Sean Parker and a collection of investors that includes Beth Seidenberg’s new venture investment operation based in LA.
Drazan — a J&J Innovation vet with a long record of entrepreneurial endeavors — exited the stage in 2018 when his last mission ended as he stepped aside as president of Grail. It wasn’t long, though, before he was helping out with a business plan for ArsenalBio that revolved around the work of a large group of interconnected scientists supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunology.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CSL ac­cus­es ri­val Pharm­ing of par­tic­i­pat­ing in a scheme to rip off IP on HAE while re­cruit­ing se­nior R&D staffer

Pharming has landed in the middle of a legal donnybrook after recruiting a senior executive from a rival R&D team at CSL. The Australian pharma giant slapped Pharming with a lawsuit alleging that the Dutch biotech’s new employee, Joseph Chiao, looted a large cache of proprietary documents as he hit the exit. And they want it all back.
Federal Judge Juan Sanchez in the Eastern District Pennsylvania court issued an injunction on Tuesday prohibiting Chiao from doing any work on HAE or primary immune deficiency in his new job and demanding that he return any material from CSL that he may have in his possession. And he wants Pharming to tell its employees not to ask for any information on the forbidden topics.
For its part, Pharming fired off an indignant response this morning denying any involvement in extracting any kind of IP from CSL, adding that it’s cooperating in the internal probe that CSL has underway.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Eli Lil­ly’s first PhI­II show­down for their $1.6B can­cer drug just flopped — what now?

When Eli Lilly plunked down $1.6 billion in cash to acquire Armo Biosciences a little more than a year ago, the stars seemed aligned in its favor. The jewel in the crown they were buying was pegilodecakin, which had cleared the proof-of-concept stage and was already in a Phase III trial for pancreatic cancer.

And that study just failed.

Lilly reported this morning that their cancer drug flopped on overall survival when added to FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-FU, oxaliplatin), compared to FOLFOX alone among patients suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.