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 Zia, M. I. Articles by Chen, E. X. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zia, M. I. Articles by Chen, E. X. Related Articles Related Correspondence Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Comparison of Outcomes of Phase II Studies and Subsequent Randomized Control Studies Using Identical Chemotherapeutic Regimens

From the Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Address reprint requests to Eric X. Chen, MD, PhD, FRCPC, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Room 5-221A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2M9; e-mail: eric.chen{at}uhn.on.ca

PURPOSE: To determine whether promising results from phase II studies could be reproduced in phase III studies, and to examine which characteristics of phase II studies might be of predictive value for subsequent phase III studies.

METHODS: We searched for all phase III studies of chemotherapy in advanced solid malignancies, published in the English language literature from July 1998 to June 2003. Each phase III study was reviewed to identify preceding phase II studies. Phase II and phase III studies included in this analysis must have used identical regimens. Data were extracted from both phase II and phase III studies.

RESULTS: Of 181 phase III studies identified, 43 used therapeutic regimens identical to those in 49 preceding phase II studies. Twelve phase III studies (28%) were "positive." The vast majority (81%) of phase III studies have lower response rates than preceding phase II studies, with a mean difference of 12.9% among all studies analyzed. None of the phase II study characteristics evaluated significantly predicted for "positive" phase III studies, but the sample size of phase II studies demonstrated a trend toward being predictive (P = .083).

CONCLUSION: Promising results from phase II studies frequently do not translate into "positive" phase III studies. Response rates in most phase III studies are lower than those in preceding phase II studies.

Presented in part at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, New Orleans, LA, June 4-7, 2004.

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

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

Related Correspondence

• Industry, Clinical Trials, and the Cost of Cancer Drugs: An Investor's Perspective
  Tony Fiorino
  JCO 2007 25: 21-23 [Full Text]
• Industry, Clinical Trials, and the Cost of Cancer Drugs: An Investor's Perspective
  Tony Fiorino
  JCO 2007 25: 21-23 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Dhani, D. Tu, D. J. Sargent, L. Seymour, and M. J. Moore Alternate Endpoints for Screening Phase II Studies Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2009; 15(6): 1873 - 1882. [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]

				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]

				H. Sorbye, C.-H. Kohne, D. J. Sargent, and B. Glimelius Patient characteristics and stratification in medical treatment studies for metastatic colorectal cancer: A proposal for standardization of patient characteristic reporting and stratification Ann. Onc., October 1, 2007; 18(10): 1666 - 1672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. L. Bedard, M. K. Krzyzanowska, M. Pintilie, and I. F. Tannock Statistical Power of Negative Randomized Controlled Trials Presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2007; 25(23): 3482 - 3487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Fiorino Industry, Clinical Trials, and the Cost of Cancer Drugs: An Investor's Perspective J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2007; 25(19): e21 - e23. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Michaelis and M. J. Ratain Phase II Trials Published in 2002: A Cross-Specialty Comparison Showing Significant Design Differences between Oncology Trials and Other Medical Specialties Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2007; 13(8): 2400 - 2405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Tomblyn and J. D. Rizzo Are There Circumstances in Which Phase 2 Study Results Should Be Practice-Changing? Hematology, January 1, 2007; 2007(1): 489 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. A. Brandes, A. Tosoni, G. Cavallo, M. Reni, E. Franceschi, L. Bonaldi, R. Bertorelle, M. Gardiman, C. Ghimenton, P. Iuzzolino, et al. Correlations Between O6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase Promoter Methylation Status, 1p and 19q Deletions, and Response to Temozolomide in Anaplastic and Recurrent Oligodendroglioma: A Prospective GICNO Study J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2006; 24(29): 4746 - 4753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]