Progression-Free Survival Rate As Primary End Point for Phase II Cancer Clinical Trials: Application to Mesothelioma—The EORTC Lung Cancer Group

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (19) ◽  
pp. 3007-3012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Francart ◽  
Catherine Legrand ◽  
Richard Sylvester ◽  
Martine Van Glabbeke ◽  
Jan P. van Meerbeeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point

Purpose Phase II cancer clinical trials play a key role in the development of new drugs. These trials should be designed to accurately determine if the drug should be abandoned or if it is sufficiently promising for further investigation in phase III trials. With new cytostatic agents or when the response assessment is difficult, using the progression-free survival rate (PFSR) at a fixed time point, such as 3, 4, 5, or 6 months, instead of the response rate (RR) as the primary end point is an alternative approach. To design future phase II trials, reference values for PFSRs that correspond to drugs with insufficient (P0) and sufficient (P1) clinical activity (CA) are necessary. This article provides these values in mesothelioma. Materials and Methods The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer database registered ten closed mesothelioma trials (nine phase II trials and one phase III trial) with 523 total patients. Trials were grouped into three categories according to the published RR: significant (n = 259), moderate (n = 142), and insufficient (n = 122) CA. Results The PFSRs at 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, respectively, were as follows: 72%, 67%, 51%, and 43% in the group with significant CA; 59%, 51%, 42%, and 35% with moderate CA; and 52%, 40%, 34%, and 28% with insufficient CA. Conclusion These values may be used to define relevant P0 and P1 values in future phase II mesothelioma trials that use PFSR as the primary end point.

scholarly journals Impact of Informative Censoring on the Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Progression-Free Survival in Phase II Clinical Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (27) ◽  
pp. 3068-3074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Campigotto ◽  
Edie Weller
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Informative Censoring ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
The Impact

Informative censoring in a progression-free survival (PFS) analysis arises when patients are censored for initiation of an effective anticancer treatment before the protocol-defined progression, and these patients are at a different risk for treatment failure than those who continue on therapy. This may cause bias in the estimated PFS when using the Kaplan-Meier method for analysis. Although there are several articles that discuss this issue from a theoretical perspective or in randomized phase III studies, there are little data to demonstrate the magnitude of the bias on the estimated quantities from a phase II trial. This article describes the issues by using two oncology phase II trials as examples, evaluates the impact of the bias using simulations, and provides recommendations. The two trials were selected because they demonstrate two different reasons for censoring. Simulations show that the magnitude of the bias depends primarily on the proportion of patients who are informatively censored and secondarily on the hazard ratio between the group of patients who remain on study and the group of patients who are informatively censored. Recommendations include using an alternative end point, which includes inadequate response and initial signs of clinical progression as treatment failure, and a competing risk analysis for studies in which competing events preclude or modify the probability of observing the primary event of interest. If informative censoring cannot be avoided, then all patients should be observed until progression, and sensitivity analyses should be used as appropriate.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase II Cancer Clinical Trials: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (32) ◽  
pp. 5058-5062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne I. Wagner ◽  
Lari Wenzel ◽  
Edward Shaw ◽  
David Cella
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
The Impact

With increasing limits on the resources available to conduct cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in treatment and symptom management trials must be prioritized. Although it has been suggested on occasion that phase III trials should take precedence over phase II trials, we argue that there is a clear and important role for PRO assessment in phase II trials going forward. To illustrate the value realized from including PROs in phase II trials, we provide case examples from cancer treatment and supportive care. The benefits of including PROs in symptom management intervention research are exemplified using phase II trials targeting cognitive impairment. The inclusion of PROs in phase II cancer clinical trials adds important information about the impact of treatment in health-related quality of life, and advances the science of PRO measurement. These contributions significantly enhance the design of phase III trials, ultimately leading to the efficient utilization of clinical trial resources.

Progression-Free Survival Ratio As End Point for Phase II Trials in Advanced Solid Tumors

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15) ◽  
pp. e451-e452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Buyse ◽  
Emmanuel Quinaux ◽  
Alain Hendlisz ◽  
Vassilis Golfinopoulos ◽  
Christophe Tournigand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Survival Ratio ◽  
Advanced Solid Tumors ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point

scholarly journals Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 475-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Imaoka ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Yusuke Hashimoto ◽  
Izumi Ohno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Ii And Iii

In oncology clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard outcome measure. In phase III trials for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), however, progression-free survival (PFS) is more frequently used, as NENs are relatively rare and indolent neoplasms. But this surrogacy of PFS for OS has never been systematically validated. We, therefore, performed a literature-based analysis of phase II and III trials for NENs to evaluate the correlation between PFS and OS in NENs treated with medical treatment. We identified phase II and III clinical trials of medical treatment for advanced NENs based on a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A total of 20 trials were identified, and 2530 patients and 30 treatment arms were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant relationship between PFS and OS (rs, 0.587; 95% confidence interval, 0.249–0.925). Conversely, the objective response rate was not significantly correlated with OS. The results of subgroup analyses indicated that the correlation between PFS and OS was higher for study arms that prohibited concomitant therapy with somatostatin analogues than for those that permitted it. The results of the present analysis indicate that PFS is significantly correlated with OS, and suggest that PFS is an acceptable surrogate for OS in clinical trials for NENs.

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

scholarly journals Phase II Study of Lenvatinib in Patients With Progressive, Recurrent or Metastatic Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (18) ◽  
pp. 1529-1537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vatche Tchekmedyian ◽  
Eric J. Sherman ◽  
Lara Dunn ◽  
Crystal Tran ◽  
Shrujal Baxi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
End Point ◽  
Adenoid Cystic

PURPOSE Recurrent or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (R/M ACC) is a malignant neoplasm of predominantly salivary gland origin for which effective therapies are lacking. We conducted a phase II trial evaluating the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor lenvatinib in patients with R/M ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study was conducted with a two-stage minimax design. Patients with histologically confirmed R/M ACC of any primary site with radiographic and/or symptomatic progression were eligible. Any prior therapy was allowed except previous lenvatinib. Patients received lenvatinib 24 mg orally per day. The primary end point was overall response rate. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety. An exploratory analysis of how MYB expression and genomic alterations relate to outcomes was conducted. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were enrolled; 32 were evaluable for the primary end point. Five patients (15.6%) had a confirmed partial response, 24 patients (75%) had stable disease, two patients (6.3%) discontinued treatment as a result of toxicity before the first scan, and one patient (3.1%) had progression of disease as best response. Median progression-free survival time was 17.5 months (95% CI, 7.2 months to not reached), although only eight progression events were observed. Patients otherwise were removed for toxicity (n = 5), as a result of withdrawal of consent (n = 9), or at the treating physician’s discretion (n = 6). Twenty-three patients required at least one dose modification, and 18 of 32 patients discontinued lenvatinib for drug-related issues. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (n = 9; 28.1%) and oral pain (n = 3; 9.4%). Three grade 4 adverse events were observed (myocardial infarction, n = 1; posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, n = 1; and intracranial hemorrhage, n = 1). CONCLUSION This trial met the prespecified overall response rate primary end point, demonstrating antitumor activity with lenvatinib in R/M ACC patients. Toxicity was comparable to previous studies, requiring monitoring and management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document