Literature DB >> 19276273

Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies.

Neesha Dhani1, Dongsheng Tu, Daniel J Sargent, Lesley Seymour, Malcolm J Moore.   

Abstract

Phase II trials are screening trials that seek to identify agents with sufficient activity to continue development and those for which further evaluation should be halted. Although definitive phase III trials use progression-free or overall survival to confirm clinical benefit, earlier endpoints are preferable for phase II trials. Traditionally, tumor shrinkage of a predetermined degree (response) has been used as a surrogate of eventual survival benefit based on the observation that high response rates (RR), and particularly complete responses, in the phase II setting resulted in survival benefit in subsequent phase III trials. Recently, some molecularly targeted agents have shown survival and clinical benefit despite very modest RRs in early clinical trials. These observations provide a major conundrum, with concerns of inappropriate termination of development for active agents with low RRs being balanced by concerns of inactive agents being taken to late-phase development with resultant increases in the failure rate of phase III trials. Numerous alternate or complementary endpoints have been explored, incorporating multinomial endpoints (including progression and response), progression-free survival, biomarkers, and, more recently, evaluation of tumor size as a continuous variable. In this review, we discuss the current status of phase II endpoints and present retrospective analyses of two international gastrointestinal cancer studies showing the potential utility of one novel approach. Alternate endpoints, although promising, require additional evaluation and prospective validation before their use as a primary endpoint for phase II trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19276273     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  30 in total

1.  Shortcomings in the clinical evaluation of new drugs: acute myeloid leukemia as paradigm.

Authors:  Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Comparison of continuous versus categorical tumor measurement-based metrics to predict overall survival in cancer treatment trials.

Authors:  Ming-Wen An; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Megan E Branda; Shauna L Hillman; Alex A Adjei; Henry C Pitot; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  More randomization in phase II trials: necessary but not sufficient.

Authors:  Lawrence Rubinstein; Michael Leblanc; Malcolm A Smith
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  A phase II study of pazopanib in patients with recurrent or metastatic invasive breast carcinoma: a trial of the Princess Margaret Hospital phase II consortium.

Authors:  Sara K Taylor; Stephen Chia; Susan Dent; Mark Clemons; Mark Agulnik; Pamela Grenci; Lisa Wang; Amit M Oza; Percy Ivy; Kathleen I Pritchard; Natasha B Leighl
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2010-08-03

5.  The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee.

Authors:  Lesley Seymour; S Percy Ivy; Daniel Sargent; David Spriggs; Laurence Baker; Larry Rubinstein; Mark J Ratain; Michael Le Blanc; David Stewart; John Crowley; Susan Groshen; Jeffrey S Humphrey; Pamela West; Donald Berry
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-03-09       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  A phase I/II study of the Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Daniel J Renouf; Malcolm J Moore; David Hedley; Sharlene Gill; Derek Jonker; Eric Chen; David Walde; Rakesh Goel; Bernadette Southwood; Isabelle Gauthier; Wendy Walsh; Lynn McIntosh; Lesley Seymour
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2010-12-18       Impact factor: 3.850

7.  Treatment of cancer with oral drugs: a position statement by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

Authors:  R Colomer; E Alba; A González-Martin; L Paz-Ares; M Martín; A Llombart; Á Rodríguez Lescure; J Salvador; J Albanell; D Isla; M Lomas; C A Rodríguez; J M Trigo; J R Germà; J Bellmunt; J Tabernero; R Rosell; E Aranda; R Cubedo; J Baselga
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Reporting trends of outcome measures in phase II and phase III trials conducted in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Saurav Ghimire; Eunjung Kyung; Eunyoung Kim
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 2.584

Review 9.  Randomized phase II designs.

Authors:  Larry Rubinstein; John Crowley; Percy Ivy; Michael Leblanc; Dan Sargent
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 10.  Effective incorporation of biomarkers into phase II trials.

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Sally Hunsberger; Alex A Adjei
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.