This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Erratum (v22,p3205) 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 Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scher, H. I. Articles by Soule, H. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scher, H. I. Articles by Soule, H. R.

Eligibility and Outcomes Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trials for Patients in the State of a Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen: Recommendations From the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group

From the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY; Brigham and Women's Hospital; Dana- Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco; Prostate Cancer Center, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles; the Prostate Cancer Foundation (CaP CURE), Santa Monica, CA; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ; University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI; Uniformed Services University, Rockville; The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD; and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. (Additional participants are listed in Appendix B.)

Address reprint requests to Howard I. Scher, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021; e-mail: scherh{at}mskcc.org

PURPOSE: To define methodology to show clinical benefit for patients in the state of a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

RESULTS: Hypothesis. A clinical states framework was used to address the hypothesis that definitive phase III trials could not be conducted in this patient population.

Patient Population. The Group focused on men with systemic (nonlocalized) recurrence and a defined risk of developing clinically detectable metastases. Models to define systemic versus local recurrence, and risk of metastatic progression were discussed.

Intervention. Therapies that have shown favorable effects in more advanced clinical states; meaningful biologic surrogates of activity linked with efficacy in other tumor types; and/or effects on a target or pathway known to contribute to prostate cancer progression in this state can be considered for evaluation.

Outcomes. An intervention-specific posttherapy PSA-based outcome definition that would justify further testing should be described at the outset.

Reporting. Trial reports should include a table showing the number of patients who achieve a specific PSA-based outcome, the number who remain enrolled onto the trial, and the number who came off study at different time points. The term PSA response should be abandoned.

Trial Design. The phases of drug development for this state are optimizing dose and schedule, demonstration of a treatment effect, and clinical benefit. To move a drug forward should require a high bar that includes no rise in PSA in a defined proportion of patients for a specified period of time at a minimum. Agents that do not produce this effect can only be tested in combination. The preferred end point of clinical benefit is prostate cancer–specific survival; the time to development of metastatic disease is an alternative.

CONCLUSION: Methodology to show that an intervention alters the natural history of prostate cancer is described. At each stage of development, only agents with sufficient activity should be moved forward.

Supported by a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Specialized Program of Research Excellence grant in prostate cancer CA05826, the Prostate Cancer Foundation (CaP CURE), and the PepsiCo Foundation.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Plummer, G. Attard, S. Pacey, L. Li, A. Razak, R. Perrett, M. Barrett, I. Judson, S. Kaye, N. L. Fox, et al. Phase 1 and Pharmacokinetic Study of Lexatumumab in Patients with Advanced Cancers Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2007; 13(20): 6187 - 6194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Gross, I. Top, I. Laux, J. Katz, J. Curran, C. Tindell, and D. Agus {beta}-2-Microglobulin Is an Androgen-Regulated Secreted Protein Elevated in Serum of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., April 1, 2007; 13(7): 1979 - 1986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Stephenson, M. W. Kattan, J. A. Eastham, Z. A. Dotan, F. J. Bianco Jr, H. Lilja, and P. T. Scardino Defining Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Proposal for a Standardized Definition J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2006; 24(24): 3973 - 3978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Sandler Exploring Dose-Intensity: Carefully Comparing High-Dose With Low-Dose External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2006; 24(13): 1975 - 1977. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Petrylak, D. P. Ankerst, C. S. Jiang, C. M. Tangen, M. H. A. Hussain, P. N. Lara Jr., J. A. Jones, M. E. Taplin, P. A. Burch, M. Kohli, et al. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen declines for surrogacy in patients treated on SWOG 99-16. J Natl Cancer Inst, April 19, 2006; 98(8): 516 - 521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. F. Slovin, A. S. Wilton, G. Heller, and H. I. Scher Time to Detectable Metastatic Disease in Patients with Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen Values following Surgery or Radiation Therapy Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2005; 11(24): 8669 - 8673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Sweeney, G. Liu, C. Yiannoutsos, J. Kolesar, D. Horvath, M. J. Staab, K. Fife, V. Armstrong, A. Treston, C. Sidor, et al. A Phase II Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Safety Trial Assessing the Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Efficacy of Oral 2-Methoxyestradiol Capsules in Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2005; 11(18): 6625 - 6633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Schoder, K. Herrmann, M. Gonen, H. Hricak, S. Eberhard, P. Scardino, H. I. Scher, and S. M. Larson 2-[18F]Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for the Detection of Disease in Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen Relapse after Radical Prostatectomy Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 4761 - 4769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Rosenbaum, M. Zahurak, V. Sinibaldi, M. A. Carducci, R. Pili, M. Laufer, T. L. DeWeese, and M. A. Eisenberger Marimastat in the Treatment of Patients with Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase I/II Trial Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2005; 11(12): 4437 - 4443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Goodin, P. Medina, T. Capanna, W. J. Shih, S. Abraham, J. Winnie, S. Doyle-Lindrud, M. Todd, and R. S. DiPaola Effect of Docetaxel in Patients With Hormone-Dependent Prostate-Specific Antigen Progression After Local Therapy for Prostate Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2005; 23(15): 3352 - 3357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Morris, T. Akhurst, S. M. Larson, M. Ditullio, E. Chu, K. Siedlecki, D. Verbel, G. Heller, W. K. Kelly, S. Slovin, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography as an Outcome Measure for Castrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Antimicrotubule Chemotherapy Clin. Cancer Res., May 1, 2005; 11(9): 3210 - 3216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. L. Kaufman, W. Wang, J. Manola, R. S. DiPaola, Y.-J. Ko, C. Sweeney, T. L. Whiteside, J. Schlom, G. Wilding, and L. M. Weiner Phase II Randomized Study of Vaccine Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer (E7897): A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 22(11): 2122 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]