PURPOSE: To update eligibility and outcome measures in trials that evaluate systemic treatment for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone. METHODS: A committee of investigators experienced in conducting trials for prostate cancer defined new consensus criteria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emerging trial data. RESULTS: The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2) recommends a two-objective paradigm: (1) controlling, relieving, or eliminating disease manifestations that are present when treatment is initiated and (2) preventing or delaying disease manifestations expected to occur. Prostate cancers progressing despite castrate levels of testosterone are considered castration resistant and not hormone refractory. Eligibility is defined using standard disease assessments to authenticate disease progression, prior treatment, distinct clinical subtypes, and predictive models. Outcomes are reported independently for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, and clinical measures, avoiding grouped categorizations such as complete or partial response. In most trials, early changes in PSA and/or pain are not acted on without other evidence of disease progression, and treatment should be continued for at least 12 weeks to ensure adequate drug exposure. Bone scans are reported as "new lesions" or "no new lesions," changes in soft-tissue disease assessed by RECIST, and pain using validated scales. Defining eligibility for prevent/delay end points requires attention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group. CONCLUSION: PCWG2 recommends increasing emphasis on time-to-event end points (ie, failure to progress) as decision aids in proceeding from phase II to phase III trials. Recommendations will evolve as data are generated on the utility of intermediate end points to predict clinical benefit.
PURPOSE: To update eligibility and outcome measures in trials that evaluate systemic treatment for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone. METHODS: A committee of investigators experienced in conducting trials for prostate cancer defined new consensus criteria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emerging trial data. RESULTS: The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2) recommends a two-objective paradigm: (1) controlling, relieving, or eliminating disease manifestations that are present when treatment is initiated and (2) preventing or delaying disease manifestations expected to occur. Prostate cancers progressing despite castrate levels of testosterone are considered castration resistant and not hormone refractory. Eligibility is defined using standard disease assessments to authenticate disease progression, prior treatment, distinct clinical subtypes, and predictive models. Outcomes are reported independently for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, and clinical measures, avoiding grouped categorizations such as complete or partial response. In most trials, early changes in PSA and/or pain are not acted on without other evidence of disease progression, and treatment should be continued for at least 12 weeks to ensure adequate drug exposure. Bone scans are reported as "new lesions" or "no new lesions," changes in soft-tissue disease assessed by RECIST, and pain using validated scales. Defining eligibility for prevent/delay end points requires attention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group. CONCLUSION: PCWG2 recommends increasing emphasis on time-to-event end points (ie, failure to progress) as decision aids in proceeding from phase II to phase III trials. Recommendations will evolve as data are generated on the utility of intermediate end points to predict clinical benefit.
Authors: Susan Halabi; Eric J Small; Philip W Kantoff; Michael W Kattan; Ellen B Kaplan; Nancy A Dawson; Ellis G Levine; Brent A Blumenstein; Nicholas J Vogelzang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Carducci; Robert J Padley; Jurgen Breul; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Bernard A Zonnenberg; Danai D Daliani; Claude C Schulman; Azmi A Nabulsi; Rod A Humerickhouse; Mark A Weinberg; Jennifer L Schmitt; Joel B Nelson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Oren Smaletz; Howard I Scher; Eric J Small; David A Verbel; Alex McMillan; Kevin Regan; W Kevin Kelly; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: José Ángel Arranz Arija; Javier Cassinello Espinosa; Miguel Ángel Climent Durán; Fernando Rivero Herrero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Ferenc G Rick; Andrew V Schally; Luca Szalontay; Norman L Block; Karoly Szepeshazi; Mehrdad Nadji; Marta Zarandi; Florian Hohla; Stefan Buchholz; Stephan Seitz Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Philipp Nuhn; Ajay M Vaghasia; Jatinder Goyal; Xian C Zhou; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: John C Araujo; Géralyn C Trudel; Fred Saad; Andrew J Armstrong; Evan Y Yu; Joaquim Bellmunt; George Wilding; John McCaffrey; Sergio V Serrano; Vsevolod B Matveev; Eleni Efstathiou; Stephane Oudard; Michael J Morris; Bruce Sizer; Peter J Goebell; Axel Heidenreich; Johann S de Bono; Stephen Begbie; Jun H Hong; Eduardo Richardet; Enrique Gallardo; Prashni Paliwal; Susan Durham; Shinta Cheng; Christopher J Logothetis Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 41.316