Effective delivery of Complex Innovative Design (CID) cancer trials—A consensus statement

Abstract

on behalf of the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres (ECMC) CID trials working group The traditional cancer drug development pathway is increasingly being superseded by trials that address multiple clinical questions.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.

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

“…On the other hand, the inclusion of the adaptive multi-arm STAMPEDE trial [37] introduces very speci c complexities which were rarely acknowledged or tackled. Since novel trial designs are on the increase [50], is it important to identify such gaps in review methodology in order to avoid biased or ine cient results. To broaden understanding of such issues, we encourage researchers in other clinical settings to undertake similar case studies of duplicated NMAs, where appropriate.…”

Reimagining Global Oncology Clinical Trials for the Postpandemic Era: A Call to Arms

“…Attempts at the standardization of trial methodology should be encouraged and adopted. 40 A greater ease of administration for ethical review across institutions, which would allow for a single ethics board to be designated lead for multiple centers within a region, country, or even continent, should become standard.…”

Clinical trials in the pandemic age: What is fit for purpose?

“…Respondents coalesced around 27 factors in need of help. Meanwhile, other experts have published their own studies and guidance to address the same question [12][13][14][15] . Studies that failed to influence policy change or a confident next step in a go/no-go decision were commonly associated with factors such as lack of use of common endpoints, lack of conservatism in effect estimates, not using biostatistical simulation to derive proper sample sizes, using unduly restrictive inclusion criteria, and avoiding use of innovative trial designs.…”