A Ocana1, E Amir, C Yeung, B Seruga, I F Tannock. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating drug combinations are often stimulated by claims of synergistic interactions in preclinical models. Overuse or misuse of the term synergy could lead to poorly designed clinical studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed using the terms 'synergy' or 'synergistic' and 'cancer' to select articles published between 2006 and 2010. Eligible studies were those that referred to synergy in preclinical studies to justify a drug combination evaluated in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Eighty-six clinical articles met eligibility criteria and 132 preclinical articles were cited in them. Most of the clinical studies were phase I (43%) or phase II trials (56%). Appropriate methods to evaluate synergy in preclinical studies included isobologram analysis in 18 studies (13.6%) and median effect in 10 studies (7.6%). Only 26 studies using animal models (39%) attempted to evaluate therapeutic index. There was no association between the result of the clinical trial and the use of an appropriate method to evaluate synergy (P=0.25, chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS: Synergy is cited frequently in phase I and phase II studies to justify the evaluation of a specific drug combination. Inappropriate methods for evaluation of synergy and poor assessment of therapeutic index have been used in most preclinical articles.
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating drug combinations are often stimulated by claims of synergistic interactions in preclinical models. Overuse or misuse of the term synergy could lead to poorly designed clinical studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed using the terms 'synergy' or 'synergistic' and 'cancer' to select articles published between 2006 and 2010. Eligible studies were those that referred to synergy in preclinical studies to justify a drug combination evaluated in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Eighty-six clinical articles met eligibility criteria and 132 preclinical articles were cited in them. Most of the clinical studies were phase I (43%) or phase II trials (56%). Appropriate methods to evaluate synergy in preclinical studies included isobologram analysis in 18 studies (13.6%) and median effect in 10 studies (7.6%). Only 26 studies using animal models (39%) attempted to evaluate therapeutic index. There was no association between the result of the clinical trial and the use of an appropriate method to evaluate synergy (P=0.25, chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS: Synergy is cited frequently in phase I and phase II studies to justify the evaluation of a specific drug combination. Inappropriate methods for evaluation of synergy and poor assessment of therapeutic index have been used in most preclinical articles.
Authors: Joaquin Mateo; Michael Ong; David S P Tan; Michael A Gonzalez; Johann S de Bono Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Channing J Paller; Penelope A Bradbury; S Percy Ivy; Lesley Seymour; Patricia M LoRusso; Laurence Baker; Larry Rubinstein; Erich Huang; Deborah Collyar; Susan Groshen; Steven Reeves; Lee M Ellis; Daniel J Sargent; Gary L Rosner; Michael L LeBlanc; Mark J Ratain Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daphne Day; Arta M Monjazeb; Elad Sharon; S Percy Ivy; Eric H Rubin; Gary L Rosner; Marcus O Butler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Miriam B Brandl; Eddy Pasquier; Fuhai Li; Dominik Beck; Sufang Zhang; Hong Zhao; Maria Kavallaris; Stephen T C Wong Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 6.603