This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roberts, T. G. Articles by Chabner, B. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roberts, T. G., Jr Articles by Chabner, B. A. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

The Phase III Trial in the Era of Targeted Therapy: Unraveling the "Go or No Go" Decision

Thomas G. Roberts, Jr, Thomas J. Lynch, Jr, Bruce A. Chabner

From the Division of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the Program on the Pharmaceutical Industry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Address reprint requests to Thomas G. Roberts Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Cox 640, 100 Blossom St, Boston, MA 02114; e-mail: troberts{at}partners.org.

Purpose: To review characteristics of contemporary phase III oncology trials and create an explicit framework to help clinical researchers prioritize novel therapies for phase III testing.

Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all reviews of phase III trials; cataloged all phase III trials in two national clinical trial databases; and reviewed approval criteria of recently approved oncology drugs from public data provided by the US Food and Drug Administration. Industry data not available elsewhere in the medical literature were obtained from a sourcebook published by a large contract research organization.

Results: Phase III oncology trials are the most expensive and time-consuming aspect of the drug development process. The results of these trials continue to exert the greatest influence on the treatment decision of oncologists and remain pivotal to the granting of drug approval. Making optimal decisions about which agents to advance to phase III testing may decrease the overall cost of cancer drug development and limit the number of patients exposed to ineffective drugs. A conceptual decision model for prioritizing novel therapies for phase III testing is presented.

Conclusion: Cancer drug development has become more complex and expensive, whereas overall clinical progress remains slow. The transition from phase II to phase III requires a strategic decision that is based on new considerations. A greater investment in phase I and II drug trials may be required to provide the information necessary for phase III planning.

T.G.R. is supported in part by National Cancer Institute grant R25T CA 92203.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. K. B. Parmar, Friederike. M.-S. Barthel, M. Sydes, R. Langley, R. Kaplan, E. Eisenhauer, M. Brady, N. James, M. A. Bookman, A.-M. Swart, et al. Speeding up the Evaluation of New Agents in Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, September 3, 2008; 100(17): 1204 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Goffin and D. Tu Phase II Stopping Rules That Employ Response Rates and Early Progression J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2008; 26(22): 3715 - 3720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Freidlin, E. L. Korn, R. Gray, and A. Martin Multi-Arm Clinical Trials of New Agents: Some Design Considerations Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2008; 14(14): 4368 - 4371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kopetz, M. Overman, D. Z. Chang, K. Y. Glover, I. Shureiqi, R. A. Wolff, J. L. Abbruzzese, and C. Eng Systematic Survey of Therapeutic Trials for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Room for Improvement in the Critical Pathway J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2008; 26(12): 2000 - 2005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. Shih Go/No-Go Decisions from Phase II to Phase III Clinical Trials Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 12, 2008; 2008(1): 217 - 221. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Chan, S. M. Ueda, V. E. Sugiyama, C. D. Stave, J. Y. Shin, B. J. Monk, B. I. Sikic, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp Analysis of Phase II Studies on Targeted Agents and Subsequent Phase III Trials: What Are the Predictors for Success? J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2008; 26(9): 1511 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H.L. Goulart, J. W. Clark, H. H. Pien, T. G. Roberts, S. N. Finkelstein, and B. A. Chabner Trends in the Use and Role of Biomarkers in Phase I Oncology Trials Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 13(22): 6719 - 6726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Tang, S. M. Bentzen, E. X. Chen, and L. L. Siu Surrogate End Points for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis From 39 Randomized Controlled Trials of First-Line Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4562 - 4568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Chabner Phase II Cancer Trials: Out of Control? Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2007; 13(8): 2307 - 2308. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Jimeno, B. Rubio-Viqueira, M. L. Amador, V. Grunwald, A. Maitra, C. Iacobuzio-Donahue, and M. Hidalgo Dual mitogen-activated protein kinase and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in biliary and pancreatic cancer Mol. Cancer Ther., March 1, 2007; 6(3): 1079 - 1088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Vickers, V. Ballen, and H. I. Scher Setting the Bar in Phase II Trials: The Use of Historical Data for Determining "Go/No Go" Decision for Definitive Phase III Testing Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2007; 13(3): 972 - 976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. DiMasi and H. G. Grabowski Economics of New Oncology Drug Development J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 209 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Calfee and E. DuPre The Emerging Market Dynamics Of Targeted Therapeutics Health Aff., September 1, 2006; 25(5): 1302 - 1308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Fathallah-Shaykh Microarrays: Applications and Pitfalls Arch Neurol, November 1, 2005; 62(11): 1669 - 1672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. I. Zia, L. L. Siu, G. R. Pond, and E. X. Chen Comparison of Outcomes of Phase II Studies and Subsequent Randomized Control Studies Using Identical Chemotherapeutic Regimens J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2005; 23(28): 6982 - 6991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Lee and L. Feng Randomized Phase II Designs in Cancer Clinical Trials: Current Status and Future Directions J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2005; 23(19): 4450 - 4457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Abrams, M. Mooney, J. Goldberg, J. Adler, S. Ansher, and M. Smith Bringing New Agents to Market: Navigating the Regulatory Requirements for Investigators Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 1, 2005; 2005(1): 211 - 216. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. G. Roberts Jr, B. H. Goulart, L. Squitieri, S. C. Stallings, E. F. Halpern, B. A. Chabner, G. S. Gazelle, S. N. Finkelstein, and J. W. Clark Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials JAMA, November 3, 2004; 292(17): 2130 - 2140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. G. Roberts Jr. and B. A. Chabner Beyond Fast Track for Drug Approvals N. Engl. J. Med., July 29, 2004; 351(5): 501 - 505. [Full Text] [PDF]