Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5913 on February 19 2008
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 26, No 8 (March 10), 2008: pp. 1346-1354
© 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Review of Phase II Trial Designs Used in Studies of Molecular Targeted Agents: Outcomes and Predictors of Success in Phase III
Robert H. El-Maraghi,
Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer
From the Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie; and National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author: Elizabeth Eisenhauer, MD, FRCPC, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, 10 Stuart St, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6; e-mail: eeisenhauer{at}ctg.queensu.ca
Purpose Because the appropriate design and end points for phase II evaluation of targeted anticancer agents are unclear, we undertook a review of recent reports of phase II trials of targeted agents to determine the types of designs used, the planned end points, the outcomes, and the relationship between trial outcomes and regulatory approval.
Methods We retrieved reports of single-agent phase II trials in six solid tumors for 19 targeted drugs. For each, we abstracted data regarding planned design and actual results. Response rates were examined for any relationship to eventual success of the agents, as determined by US Food and Drug Administration approval for at least one indication.
Results Eighty-nine trials were identified. Objective response was the primary or coprimary end point in the majority of trials (61 of 89 trials). Fourteen reports were of randomized studies generally evaluating different doses of agents, not as controlled experiments. Enrichment for target expression was uncommon. Objective responses were seen in 38 trials; in 19 trials, response rates were more than 10%, and in eight, they were more than 20%. Agents with high response rates tended to have high nonprogression rates; renal cell carcinoma was the exception to this. Higher overall response rates were predictive of regulatory approval in the tumor types reviewed (P = .005).
Conclusion In practice, phase II design for targeted agents is similar to that for cytotoxics. Objective response seems to be a useful end point for screening new targeted agents because, in our review, its observation predicted for eventual success. Improvements in design are recommended, as is more frequent inclusion of biological questions as part of phase II trials.
published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on February 19, 2008.
The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group (CTG) is supported by a core grant from the National Cancer Institute of Canada with funds received from the Canadian Cancer Society. R.H.E.-M. was a Drug Development Fellow at NCIC CTG from 2005 to 2006 whose salary was supported by a Transdisciplinary Training Program Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as well as a Drug Development Fellowship grant from AstraZeneca.
Presented in part at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 2-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA; and the National Cancer Research Institute Cancer Conference, October 8-11, 2006, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
Related Editorial
- Is Response Rate Relevant to the Phase II Trial Design of Targeted Agents?
Afshin Dowlati and Pingfu Fu
JCO 2008 26: 1204-1205
[Full Text]
Related Correspondence
- Predicting Success in Phase III Studies From Phase II Results: A New Paradigm Is Needed
Richard Leff and Michele Andrews
JCO 2008 26: 3653-3654
[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
P. Fu, A. Dowlati, and M. Schluchter
Comparison of Power Between Randomized Discontinuation Design and Upfront Randomization Design on Progression-Free Survival
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2009;
27(25):
4135 - 4141.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Claret, P. Girard, P. M. Hoff, E. Van Cutsem, K. P. Zuideveld, K. Jorga, J. Fagerberg, and R. Bruno
Model-Based Prediction of Phase III Overall Survival in Colorectal Cancer on the Basis of Phase II Tumor Dynamics
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2009;
27(25):
4103 - 4108.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Baar, P. Silverman, J. Lyons, P. Fu, F. Abdul-Karim, N. Ziats, J. Wasman, P. Hartman, J. Jesberger, L. Dumadag, et al.
A Vasculature-Targeting Regimen of Preoperative Docetaxel with or without Bevacizumab for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Impact on Angiogenic Biomarkers
Clin. Cancer Res.,
May 15, 2009;
15(10):
3583 - 3590.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Ferraldeschi and P. Lorigan
Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer--moving beyond response rate?
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2009;
20(5):
801 - 802.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Rubinstein, J. Crowley, P. Ivy, M. LeBlanc, and D. Sargent
Randomized Phase II Designs
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2009;
15(6):
1883 - 1890.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Leff and M. Andrews
Predicting Success in Phase III Studies From Phase II Results: A New Paradigm Is Needed
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 20, 2008;
26(21):
3653 - 3654.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Eisenhauer and R. H. El-Maraghi
In Reply
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 20, 2008;
26(21):
3654 - 3655.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dowlati and P. Fu
Is Response Rate Relevant to the Phase II Trial Design of Targeted Agents?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 10, 2008;
26(8):
1204 - 1205.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
