Alternate Endpoints for Screening Phase II Studies
Open Access
- 15 March 2009
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Clinical Cancer Research
- Vol. 15 (6) , 1873-1882
Abstract
Phase II trials are screening trials that seek to identify agents with sufficient activity to continue development and those for which further evaluation should be halted. Although definitive phase III trials use progression-free or overall survival to confirm clinical benefit, earlier endpoints are preferable for phase II trials. Traditionally, tumor shrinkage of a predetermined degree (response) has been used as a surrogate of eventual survival benefit based on the observation that high response rates (RR), and particularly complete responses, in the phase II setting resulted in survival benefit in subsequent phase III trials. Recently, some molecularly targeted agents have shown survival and clinical benefit despite very modest RRs in early clinical trials. These observations provide a major conundrum, with concerns of inappropriate termination of development for active agents with low RRs being balanced by concerns of inactive agents being taken to late-phase development with resultant increases in the failure rate of phase III trials. Numerous alternate or complementary endpoints have been explored, incorporating multinomial endpoints (including progression and response), progression-free survival, biomarkers, and, more recently, evaluation of tumor size as a continuous variable. In this review, we discuss the current status of phase II endpoints and present retrospective analyses of two international gastrointestinal cancer studies showing the potential utility of one novel approach. Alternate endpoints, although promising, require additional evaluation and prospective validation before their use as a primary endpoint for phase II trials.Keywords
This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit:
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Wild-Type KRAS Is Required for Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2008
- Response-Independent Survival Benefit in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of N9741 and AVF2107Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008
- We Should Desist Using RECIST, at Least in GISTJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Sorafenib in Advanced Clear-Cell Renal-Cell CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Phase II Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2006
- Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000