Pediatric brain tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related death during childhood. Since the first pediatric brain tumor clinical trials, the field has seen improved outcomes in some, but not all tumor types. In the past few decades, a number of promising new therapeutic agents have emerged, yet only a few of these agents have been incorporated into clinical trials for pediatric brain tumors. In this review, the authors discuss the process of and challenges in pediatric clinical trial design; this will allow for highly efficient and effective clinical trials with appropriate endpoints to ensure rapid and safe investigation of novel therapeutics for children with brain tumors.
PatelSBhatnagarAWearC. Are pediatric brain tumors on the rise in the USA? Significant incidence and survival findings from the SEER database analysis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:147–154.
2.
BishopAJMcDonaldMWChangAL. Infant brain tumors: incidence, survival, and the role of radiation based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Data. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:341–347.
3.
LoRussoPMBoernerSASeymourL. An overview of the optimal planning, design, and conduct of phase I studies of new therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1710–1718.
4.
VassalGZwaanCMAshleyD. New drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: the need for novel development pathways. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e117–e124.
5.
PollackIF. Multidisciplinary management of childhood brain tumors: a review of outcomes, recent advances, and challenges. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8:135–148.
6.
GajjarAPfisterSMTaylorMD. Molecular insights into pediatric brain tumors have the potential to transform therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:5630–5640.
BergSL. Ethical challenges in cancer research in children. Oncologist. 2007;12:1336–1343.
10.
ShaddyREDenneSC. Clinical report—guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 2010;125:850–860.
11.
FarberS. Chemotherapy in the treatment of leukemia and Wilms’ tumor. JAMA. 1966;198:826–836.
12.
BleyerWA. The U.S. pediatric cancer clinical trials programmes: international implications and the way forward. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:1439–1447.
13.
FinlayJLGoinsSC. Brain tumors in children. III. Advances in chemotherapy. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1987;9:264–271.
14.
LukensJN. Progress resulting from clinical trials. Solid tumors in childhood cancer. Cancer. 1994;74:2710–2718.
15.
O’LearyMKrailoMAndersonJR. Progress in childhood cancer: 50 years of research collaboration, a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Semin Oncol. 2008;35:484–493.
16.
DonsonAMAddo-YoboSOHandlerMH. MGMT promoter methylation correlates with survival benefit and sensitivity to temozolomide in pediatric glioblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:403–407.
17.
LeeJYParkCKParkSH. MGMT promoter gene methylation in pediatric glioblastoma: analysis using MS-MLPA. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27:1877–1883.
18.
WellerMTabatabaiGKastnerB. MGMT promoter methylation is a strong prognostic biomarker for benefit from dose-intensified temozolomide rechallenge in progressive glioblastoma: the DIRECTOR trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:2057–2064.
19.
RobinsonGParkerMKranenburgTA. Novel mutations target distinct subgroups of medulloblastoma. Nature. 2012;488:43–48.
20.
WuGDiazAKPaughBS. The genomic landscape of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and pediatric non-brainstem high-grade glioma. Nat Genet. 2014;46:444–450.
FouladiMStewartCFBlaneySM. A molecular biology and phase II trial of lapatinib in children with refractory CNS malignancies: a pediatric brain tumor consortium study. J Neurooncol. 2013;114:173–179.
24.
PollackIFJakackiRIBlaneySM. Phase I trial of imatinib in children with newly diagnosed brainstem and recurrent malignant gliomas: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium report. Neuro Oncol. 2007;9:145–160.
25.
PollackIFStewartCFKocakM. A phase II study of gefitinib and irradiation in children with newly diagnosed brainstem gliomas: a report from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13:290–297.
26.
Glade BenderJLLeeAReidJM. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of pazopanib in children with soft tissue sarcoma and other refractory solid tumors: a children’s oncology group phase I consortium report. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3034–3043.
27.
GajjarAStewartCFEllisonDW. Phase I study of vismodegib in children with recurrent or refractory medulloblastoma: a pediatric brain tumor consortium study. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6305–6312.
GilbertMRArmstrongTSPopeWB. Facing the future of brain tumor clinical research. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:5591–5600.
30.
RaabeEKieranMWCohenKJ. New strategies in pediatric gliomas: molecular advances in pediatric low-grade gliomas as a model. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4553–4558.
31.
NazarianRShiHWangQ. Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation. Nature. 2010;468:973–977.
32.
MartinezRRohdeVSchackertG. Different molecular patterns in glioblastoma multiforme subtypes upon recurrence. J Neurooncol. 2010;96:321–329.
BickelsJKollenderYMerinskyO. Coley’s toxin: historical perspective. Isr Med Assoc J. 2002;4:471–472.
35.
ThomasAAErnstoffMSFadulCE. Immunotherapy for the treatment of glioblastoma. Cancer J. 2012;18:59–68.
36.
AveryRAHwangEIJakackiRI. Marked recovery of vision in children with optic pathway gliomas treated with bevacizumab. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:111–114.
37.
GururanganSFangusaroJPoussaintTY. Efficacy of bevacizumab plus irinotecan in children with recurrent low-grade gliomas—a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium study. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:310–317.
38.
GururanganSFangusaroJYoung PoussaintT. Lack of efficacy of bevacizumab + irinotecan in cases of pediatric recurrent ependymoma—a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium study. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14:1404–1412.
39.
GururanganSChiSNYoung PoussaintT. Lack of efficacy of bevacizumab plus irinotecan in children with recurrent malignant glioma and diffuse brainstem glioma: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3069–3075.
40.
JakackiRICohenBHJamisonC. Phase II evaluation of interferon-alpha-2a for progressive or recurrent craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg. 2000;92:255–260.
41.
WainwrightDAChangALDeyM. Durable therapeutic efficacy utilizing combinatorial blockade against IDO, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 in mice with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:5290–5301.
42.
BerghoffASKieselBWidhalmG. Programmed death ligand 1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:1064–1075.
43.
MeleroIGrimaldiAMPerez-GraciaJL. Clinical development of immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies and opportunities for combination. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:997–1008.
44.
De VleeschouwerSFieuwsSRutkowskiS. Postoperative adjuvant dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in patients with relapsed glioblastoma multiforme. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3098–3104.
45.
FecciPEHeimbergerABSampsonJH. Immunotherapy for primary brain tumors: no longer a matter of privilege. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:5620–5629.
46.
PollackIFJakackiRIButterfieldLH. Antigen-specific immune responses and clinical outcome after vaccination with glioma-associated antigen peptides and polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid stabilized by lysine and carboxymethylcellulose in children with newly diagnosed malignant brainstem and nonbrainstem gliomas. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2050–2058.
47.
CheadleEJGornallHBaldanV. CAR T cells: driving the road from the laboratory to the clinic. Immunol Rev. 2014;257:91–106.
48.
AhmedNRatnayakeMSavoldoB. Regression of experimental medulloblastoma following transfer of HER2-specific T cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:5957–5964.
49.
SampsonJHChoiBDSanchez-PerezL. EGFRvIII mCAR-modified T-cell therapy cures mice with established intracerebral glioma and generates host immunity against tumor-antigen loss. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:972–984.
50.
HanSJZygourakisCLimM. Immunotherapy for glioma: promises and challenges. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2012;23:357–370.
51.
WaddingtonCH. The epigenotype. 1942. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:10–13.
52.
BergerSLKouzaridesTShiekhattarR. An operational definition of epigenetics. Genes Dev. 2009;23:781–783.
53.
HuetherRDongLChenX. The landscape of somatic mutations in epigenetic regulators across 1,000 paediatric cancer genomes. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3630.
54.
WellerMStuppRReifenbergerG. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine?Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6:39–51.
55.
FontebassoAMGaydenTNikbakhtH. Epigenetic dysregulation: a novel pathway of oncogenesis in pediatric brain tumors. Acta Neuropathol. 2014;128:615–627.
56.
KummarSChenAJiJ. Phase I study of PARP inhibitor ABT-888 in combination with topotecan in adults with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Cancer Res. 2011;71:5626–5634.
57.
WuLLiXJanagamDR. Overcoming the blood-brain barrier in chemotherapy treatment of pediatric brain tumors. Pharm Res. 2014;31:531–540.
58.
RempeRCramerSQiaoR. Strategies to overcome the barrier: use of nanoparticles as carriers and modulators of barrier properties. Cell Tissue Res. 2014;355:717–726.
59.
SimeonovaIHuillardE. In vivo models of brain tumors: roles of genetically engineered mouse models in understanding tumor biology and use in preclinical studies. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2014;71:4007–4026.
60.
SmithMBernsteinMBleyerWA. Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:966–978.
61.
MehtaMPWangDWangF. Veliparib in combination with whole brain radiation therapy in patients with brain metastases: results of a phase 1 study. J Neurooncol. 2015;122:409–417.
62.
de AzambujaEZardavasDLemortM. Phase I trial combining temozolomide plus lapatinib for the treatment of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: the LAPTEM trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2985–2989.
63.
FouladiMLaninghamFWuJ. Phase I study of everolimus in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4806–4812.
64.
Le TourneauCLeeJJSiuLL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:708–720.
65.
DoussauAAsselainBLe DeleyMC. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:657–665.
66.
SkolnikJMBarrettJSJayaramanB. Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:190–195.
67.
RahmaOEGammohESimonRM. Is the “3+3” dose-escalation phase I clinical trial design suitable for therapeutic cancer vaccine development? A recommendation for alternative design. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:4758–4767.
68.
PaolettiXGeoergerBDozF. A comparative analysis of paediatric dose-finding trials of molecularly targeted agent with adults’ trials. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:2392–2402.
69.
IvySPSiuLLGarrett-MayerE. Approaches to phase 1 clinical trial design focused on safety, efficiency, and selected patient populations: a report from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1726–1736.
70.
CageTASamaghSPMuellerS. Feasibility, safety, and indications for surgical biopsy of intrinsic brainstem tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29:1313–1319.
71.
AndersonBDAdamsonPCWeinerSL. Tissue collection for correlative studies in childhood cancer clinical trials: ethical considerations and special imperatives. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4846–4850.
72.
DanceyJEDobbinKKGroshenS. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1745–1755.
73.
TakimotoCH. Phase 0 clinical trials in oncology: a paradigm shift for early drug development?Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;63:703–709.
74.
KummarSKindersRRubinsteinL. Compressing drug development timelines in oncology using phase “0” trials. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:131–139.
McKinneyREJr. Congress, the FDA, and the fair development of new medications for children. Pediatrics. 2003;112:669–670.
77.
BreslowLH. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002: the rise of the voluntary incentive structure and congressional refusal to require pediatric testing. Harvard J Legis. 2003;40:133–193.
78.
AnsherSSScharfR. The Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the National Cancer Institute: industry collaborations in new agent development. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2001;949:333–340.
79.
ArmstrongPWCaliffRM. Data and safety monitoring boards: academic credit where credit is due?JAMA. 2013;310:1563–1564.
80.
GandhiR. Research involving children: regulations, review boards and reform. J Health Care Law Policy. 2005;8:264–330.
81.
CarleerJKarresJ. Juvenile animal studies and pediatric drug development: a European regulatory perspective. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2011;92:254–260.
82.
RoseK. European Union pediatric legislation jeopardizes worldwide, timely future advances in the care of children with cancer. Clin Ther. 2014;36:163–177.
83.
HughesMIngleseJKurtzA. Early drug discovery and development guidelines: for academic researchers, collaborators, and start-up companies. In: SittampalamGSGal-EddNArkinM eds. Assay Guidance Manual. Bethesda, MD: Eli Lilly; 2004.
