Seamless Designs: Current Practice and Considerations for Early-Phase Drug Development in Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, drug development has evaluated dose, safety, activity, and comparative benefit in a sequence of phases using trial designs and endpoints specifically devised for each phase. Innovations in drug development seek to consolidate the phases and rapidly expand accrual with "seamless" trial designs. Although consolidation and rapid accrual may yield efficiencies, widespread use of seamless first-in-human (FiH) trials without careful consideration of objectives, statistical analysis plans, or trial oversight raises concerns. A working group formed by the National Cancer Institute convened to consider and discuss opportunities and challenges for such trials as well as encourage responsible use of these designs. We reviewed all abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings from 2010 to 2017 for FiH trials enrolling at least 100 patients. We identified 1786 early-phase trials enrolling 57 559 adult patients. Fifty-one of the trials (2.9%) investigated 50 investigational new drugs, were seamless, and accounted for 14.6% of the total patients. The seamless trials included a median of 3 (range = 1-13) expansion cohorts. The overall risk of clinically significant treatment-related adverse events (grade 3-4) was 49.1% (range = 0.0-100%), and seven studies reported at least one toxic death. Rapid expansion of FiH trials may lead to earlier drug approval and corresponding widespread patient access to active therapeutics. Nevertheless, seamless designs must adhere to established ethical, scientific, and statistical standards. Protocols should include prospectively planned analyses of efficacy in disease- or biomarker-defined cohorts of sufficient rigor to support accelerated approval.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.806 | 0.774 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".