» Articles » PMID: 31907370

Effective Delivery of Complex Innovative Design (CID) Cancer Trials-A Consensus Statement

Abstract

The traditional cancer drug development pathway is increasingly being superseded by trials that address multiple clinical questions. These are collectively termed Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials. CID trials not only assess the safety and toxicity of novel anticancer medicines but also their efficacy in biomarker-selected patients, specific cancer cohorts or in combination with other agents. They can be adapted to include new cohorts and test additional agents within a single protocol. Whilst CID trials can speed up the traditional route to drug licencing, they can be challenging to design, conduct and interpret. The Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres (ECMC) network, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the Health Boards of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, formed a working group with relevant stakeholders from clinical trials units, the pharmaceutical industry, funding bodies, regulators and patients to identify the main challenges of CID trials. The working group generated ten consensus recommendations. These aim to improve the conduct, quality and acceptability of oncology CID trials in clinical research and, importantly, to expedite the process by which effective treatments can reach cancer patients.

Citing Articles

A maturity model for the scientific review of clinical trial designs and their informativeness.

Dolley S, Norman T, McNair D, Hartman D Trials. 2024; 25(1):271.

PMID: 38641848 PMC: 11027356. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08099-5.


Frontline and Relapsed Rhabdomyosarcoma (FaR-RMS) Clinical Trial: A Report from the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG).

Chisholm J, Mandeville H, Adams M, Minard-Collin V, Rogers T, Kelsey A Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(5).

PMID: 38473359 PMC: 10931395. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16050998.


Optimizing the FDA's Project Optimus: opportunities and challenges.

Rodney S, Banerji U Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023; 21(3):165-166.

PMID: 38129533 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-023-00853-z.


Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change.

Fisher D, Burdett S, Vale C, White I, Tierney J Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1):274.

PMID: 36527153 PMC: 9755764. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6.


Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective.

Blagden S, Yu L, Ellis S, Hughes H, Shaaban A, Fennelly-Barnwell J Br J Cancer. 2022; 128(3):474-477.

PMID: 36434156 PMC: 9702707. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02051-7.


References
1.
Gyawali B, Kesselheim A . Reinforcing the social compromise of accelerated approval. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018; 15(10):596-597. DOI: 10.1038/s41571-018-0066-3. View

2.
Liu S, Lee J . An overview of the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015; 4(3):33. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2015.06.07. View

3.
Renfro L, Mandrekar S . Definitions and statistical properties of master protocols for personalized medicine in oncology. J Biopharm Stat. 2017; 28(2):217-228. DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2017.1372778. View

4.
Woodcock J, LaVange L . Master Protocols to Study Multiple Therapies, Multiple Diseases, or Both. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(1):62-70. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1510062. View

5.
Kaplan R, Maughan T, Crook A, Fisher D, Wilson R, Brown L . Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(36):4562-8. PMC: 4394353. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.7905. View