Non-randomised phase II trials of drug combinations

2002 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Van Glabbeke ◽  
W. Steward ◽  
J.P. Armand
Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 178
Author(s):  
Faruque Azam ◽  
Alexei Vazquez

Background: Drug combinations are the standard of care in cancer treatment. Identifying effective cancer drug combinations has become more challenging because of the increasing number of drugs. However, a substantial number of cancer drugs stumble at Phase III clinical trials despite exhibiting favourable efficacy in the earlier Phase. Methods: We analysed recent Phase II cancer trials comprising 2165 response rates to uncover trends in cancer therapies and used a null model of non-interacting agents to infer synergistic and antagonistic drug combinations. We compared our latest efficacy dataset with a previous dataset to assess the progress of cancer therapy. Results: Targeted therapies reach higher response rates when used in combination with cytotoxic drugs. We identify four synergistic and 10 antagonistic combinations based on the observed and expected response rates. We demonstrate that recent targeted agents have not significantly increased the response rates. Conclusions: We conclude that either we are not making progress or response rate measured by tumour shrinkage is not a reliable surrogate endpoint for the targeted agents.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faruque Azam ◽  
Alexei Vazquez

AbstractBackgroundDrug combinations are the standard of care in cancer treatment. Identifying effective cancer drug combinations has become more challenging because of the increasing number of drugs. However, a substantial number of cancer drugs stumble at Phase III clinical trials despite exhibiting favourable efficacy in the earlier Phase.MethodsWe analysed recent Phase II cancer trials comprising 2,165 response rates to uncover trends in cancer therapies and used a null model of non-interacting agents to infer synergistic and antagonistic drug combinations. We compared our latest efficacy dataset with a previous dataset to assess the progress of cancer therapy.ResultsWe demonstrate that targeted therapies should be used in combination with cytotoxic drugs to reach high response rates. We identify 4 synergistic and 10 antagonistic combinations based on the observed and expected response rates. We also demonstrate that recent targeted agents have not significantly increased the response rates.ConclusionsWe conclude either we are not making progress or response rate measured by tumour shrinkage is not a reliable surrogate endpoint for the targeted agents.


2001 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhawna Sirohi ◽  
Samar Kulkarni ◽  
Ray Powles

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Englert ◽  
Meinhard Kieser

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1555-1563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Blaney ◽  
Frank M. Balis ◽  
Stacey Berg ◽  
Carola A.S. Arndt ◽  
Richard Heideman ◽  
...  

Purpose Preclinical studies of mafosfamide, a preactivated cyclophosphamide analog, were performed to define a tolerable and potentially active target concentration for intrathecal (IT) administration. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of IT mafosfamide was performed to determine a dose for subsequent phase II trials. Patients and Methods In vitro cytotoxicity studies were performed in MCF-7, Molt-4, and rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines. Feasibility and pharmacokinetic studies were performed in nonhuman primates. These preclinical studies were followed by a phase I trial in patients with neoplastic meningitis. There were five dose levels ranging from 1 mg to 6.5 mg. Serial CSF samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic studies in a subset of patients with Ommaya reservoirs. Results The cytotoxic target exposure for mafosfamide was 10 μmol/L. Preclinical studies demonstrated that this concentration could be easily achieved in ventricular CSF after intraventricular dosing. In the phase I clinical trial, headache was the dose-limiting toxicity. Headache was ameliorated at 5 mg by prolonging the infusion rate to 20 minutes, but dose-limiting headache occurred at 6.5 mg dose with prolonged infusion. Ventricular CSF mafosfamide concentrations at 5 mg exceeded target cytotoxic concentrations after an intraventricular dose, but lumbar CSF concentrations 2 hours after the dose were less than 10 μmol/L. Therefore, a strategy to alternate dosing between the intralumbar and intraventricular routes was tested. Seven of 30 registrants who were assessable for response had a partial response, and six had stable disease. Conclusion The recommended phase II dose for IT mafosfamide, administered without concomitant analgesia, is 5 mg over 20 minutes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document