Literature DB >> 12181255

Relationship between objective responses in phase I trials and potential efficacy of non-specific cytotoxic investigational new drugs.

I Sekine1, N Yamamoto, H Kunitoh, Y Ohe, T Tamura, T Kodama, N Saijo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the evaluation of new investigational drugs in phase I, II and III trials requires considerable time and patient resources, only a few of these drugs are ultimately established as anticancer drugs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected papers of phase I trials by a Medline search using the key words 'Neoplasms/Drug Therapy in MeSH' and 'Phase I' for the period from 1976 to 1993. A drug was defined as 'effective' if a regimen including the drug produced positive results in at least one phase III trial. We analyzed the relationship between objective (complete and partial) responses in phase I trials and the effectiveness of agents in phase III trials.
RESULTS: A total of 399 single-agent phase I trials of cytotoxic agents in adult patients with solid tumors were obtained. Further clinical investigation was not recommended in 36 trials (9%) because of severe toxicity. In the remaining 363 trials, 174 drugs were evaluated and the median number of trials for each drug was two (range one to nine). Objective responses were observed in 495 (4.1%) of 12 076 patients, 178 (49%) of 363 trials, and 115 (66%) of 174 drugs. Of the 174 drugs, 48 (28%) were considered to be effective. Percentages of effective drugs rose as the number of responders in phase I trials increased. Logistic regression analyses showed the number of responders to be significantly associated with drug effectiveness [odds ratio = 1.16 (1.06-1.27), P = 0.001 for 174 drugs; odds ratio = 1.16 (1.05-1.28), P = 0.0038 for 363 trials]. Although 10 active drugs failed to produce an objective response in phase I trials, seven of them produced a tumor regression of <50%, and three reportedly produced objective responses in phase I trials conducted before 1975. The numbers of responders among patients with lung, ovarian, breast or colorectal cancer, but not those among patients with lymphoma, melanoma, sarcoma or renal-cell carcinoma, were associated significantly with drug effectiveness against the respective tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Objective responses observed in phase I trials are important for determining the future development of an anticancer drug.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12181255     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdf202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  10 in total

1.  The impact of non-drug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I trials.

Authors:  Alexia Iasonos; Mrinal Gounder; David R Spriggs; John F Gerecitano; David M Hyman; Sarah Zohar; John O'Quigley
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Genetic factors in metastatic progression of cutaneous melanoma: the future role of circulating melanoma cells in prognosis and management.

Authors:  A Ireland; M Millward; R Pearce; M Lee; M Ziman
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 5.150

3.  Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Filipa Lynce; Matthew J Blackburn; Ling Cai; Heping Wang; Larry Rubinstein; Pamela Harris; Claudine Isaacs; Paula R Pohlmann
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Comprehensive screening of target molecules by next-generation sequencing in patients with malignant solid tumors: guiding entry into phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Yuko Tanabe; Hitoshi Ichikawa; Takashi Kohno; Hiroshi Yoshida; Takashi Kubo; Mamoru Kato; Satoru Iwasa; Atsushi Ochiai; Noboru Yamamoto; Yasuhiro Fujiwara; Kenji Tamura
Journal:  Mol Cancer       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 27.401

5.  An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology.

Authors:  Denis Leonardo Jardim; Maria Schwaederle; David S Hong; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-08-16

6.  Tumor volume as an alternative response measurement for imatinib treated GIST patients.

Authors:  Gaia Schiavon; Alessandro Ruggiero; Patrick Schöffski; Bronno van der Holt; Dave J Bekers; Karel Eechoute; Vincent Vandecaveye; Gabriel P Krestin; Jaap Verweij; Stefan Sleijfer; Ron H J Mathijssen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for patients treated within the context of a phase I study: the Royal Marsden Hospital experience.

Authors:  H-T Arkenau; D Olmos; J E Ang; J de Bono; I Judson; S Kaye
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Phase I study of cisplatin analogue nedaplatin (254-S) and paclitaxel in patients with unresectable squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  I Sekine; H Nokihara; A Horiike; N Yamamoto; H Kunitoh; Y Ohe; T Tamura; T Kodama; N Saijo
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-03-22       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Comparison of prognostic factors in patients in phase I trials of cytotoxic drugs vs new noncytotoxic agents.

Authors:  C Han; J P Braybrooke; G Deplanque; M Taylor; D Mackintosh; K Kaur; K Samouri; T S Ganesan; A L Harris; D C Talbot
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-10-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Developing combination strategies using PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors to treat cancer.

Authors:  Emmett V Schmidt
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 9.623

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.