Review of Phase II Trial Designs Used in Studies of Molecular Targeted Agents: Outcomes and Predictors of Success in Phase III

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1346-1354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. El-Maraghi ◽  
Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Regulatory Approval ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
End Points ◽  
End Point

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.

scholarly journals Trends in Phase II Trials for Cancer Therapies

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 178
Author(s):  
Faruque Azam ◽  
Alexei Vazquez
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Null Model ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Drug Combinations ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Phase Ii Trials

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.

scholarly journals Resampling the N9741 Trial to Compare Tumor Dynamic Versus Conventional End Points in Randomized Phase II Trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manish R. Sharma ◽  
Elizabeth Gray ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Daniel J. Sargent ◽  
Theodore G. Karrison
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
End Points ◽  
End Point ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Log Ratio

Purpose The optimal end point for randomized phase II trials of anticancer therapies remains controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from N9741, a randomized phase III trial of chemotherapy regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer, and compared the power of various end points to detect the superior therapy (FOLFOX [infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin] had longer overall survival than both IROX [irinotecan plus oxaliplatin] and IFL [irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin]). Methods Tumor measurements and progression-free survival (PFS) data were obtained for 1,471 patients; 1,002 had consistently measured tumors and were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate two-arm, randomized phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one sided) and 20 to 80 patients per arm. End points included log ratio of tumor size at 6, 12, and 18 weeks relative to baseline; time to tumor growth (TTG), estimated using a nonlinear mixed-effects model; and PFS. Arms were compared using rank sum tests for log ratio and TTG and a log-rank test for PFS. Results For FOLFOX versus IFL, TTG and PFS had similar power, with both exceeding the power of log ratio at 18 weeks; for FOLFOX versus IROX, TTG and log ratio at 18 weeks had similar power, with both exceeding the power of PFS. The best end points exhibited > 80% power with 60 to 80 patients per arm. Conclusion TTG is a powerful end point for randomized phase II trials of cytotoxic therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer; it was either comparable or superior to PFS and log ratio at 18 weeks. Additional studies will be needed to clarify the potential of TTG as a phase II end point.

scholarly journals Trends in Phase II trials for cancer therapies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faruque Azam ◽  
Alexei Vazquez
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Null Model ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Drug Combinations ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Phase Ii Trials

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.

scholarly journals Temsirolimus in Combination with Bendamustine and Rituximab for the Treatment of Relapsed Mantle Cell and Follicular Lymphoma: Report on an Ongoing Phase I/II Trial

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3930-3930
Author(s):  
Georg Hess ◽  
Ulrich Keller ◽  
Johannes Atta ◽  
Ulrich Bitz ◽  
Christian Lerchenmueller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Mtor Inhibition ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Abstract Background: mTOR inhibition has been shown to be effective in various subtypes of malignant lymphomas. In relapsed MCL a phase III trial could prove superiority of Temsirolimus to standard options. Furthermore, in patients with follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, promising response rates could be observed (Smith et al, JCO 2010). Whereas combination to single agent Rituximab (R) improved efficacy (Ansell et al, Lancet Oncology 2011), there is limited information of the feasibility and efficacy in combination with chemotherapy. Bendamustine (B) has been shown to be effective in various lymphoma entities and has a beneficial side effect profile (Rummel et al, JCO, 2005). In the phase I of this trial, we have established that 50mg of Temsirolimus given 3 times weekly in a four week cycle could be safely added to BR (Hess, Leukemia, 2015). Here we report for the first time combined results of phase I and II of this trial. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Inclusion criteria: patients were eligible if they had histologically proven FL or MCL, 1-3 prior treatment lines, no curative option available, no refractoriness to Bendamustine, measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient bone marrow reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. Treatment consisted of Bendamustine 90mg/m² day 1-2, Rituximab 375mg/m² day 1 and Temsirolimus 50 mg day 2, 8, 15 of a 28d cycle. A total of 4 cycles was planned with interim staging after 2 cycles. Results: Overall 34 patients (pts) have been included until now (15 pts phase I, 19 pts phase II). Concerning clinical characteristics, median age was 71 years, with 25 MCL and 9FL, and a median number of 2 pretreatments (1-3). Overall the treatment was well tolerated, and toxicity was predominantly hematologic. In 118 evaluable cycles of chemotherapy the following hematologic grade 3 / 4 toxicities were noted: leukopenia (11 pts, 32%), neutropenia (8 pts, 24%), and thrombocytopenia (7 pts, 21%). Non-hematologic grade 3 / 4 observed in at least two patients were angioedema and decrease in blood potassium, infection, metabolic (4 events). AE's of special interest: pulmonary: rate of cough (4; 12%) and pneumonitis (1; 3%); gastrointestinal: diarrhea (6; 18%), nausea (13, 38%); general: fatigue (16; 47%), mucositis (13, 38%); bleeding: epistaxis (4; 12%), which all were predominantly grade 1 or 2. Response: currently, best responses were 8 CR (31%), 16 PR (62%) and 2 SD (8%) in 26 patients evaluable so far. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Overall responses were 94% in MCL (7 CR, 10 PR, 1 SD) and 88% in FL (1 CR, 6 PR, 1 SD). After a median follow up of 13 months (mean: 21 months) median PFS is 18.6 months for the entire cohort, with 22 months for MCL and not reached in FL. Summary: In this ongoing phase II trial 50mg Temsirolimus (day 1,8,15) in combination with Bendamustine and Rituximab was well tolerated and feasible. A moderate dose of Temsirolimus to standard chemotherapy might be the optimal way to achieve the maximum efficacy with mTOR inhibitors; in fact excellent response rates suggest an additive effect of mTOR inhibition to BR. Even after the BTK inhibitor Ibrutinib has entered the clinical arena of MCL, this combined treatment represents a valuable additional option especially for patients with relapsed MCL Disclosures Hess: Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen, Roche, , Celgene, Novartis: Consultancy. Keller:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Witzens-Harig:Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Trabectedin (T) in relapsed advanced ovarian cancer (ROC): A pooled analysis of three phase II studies

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5579-5579 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. McMeekin ◽  
J. M. del Campo ◽  
N. Colombo ◽  
C. Krasner ◽  
A. Roszak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Studies

5579 Introduction: Trabectedin is a DNA minor groove binding drug with a distinct MoA under development in sarcoma, prostate, breast and ROC. We have performed a pooled analysis of efficacy and tolerability of all phase II trials with T as 2nd - 3rd line in ROC. Methods: Three Trabectedin schedules were investigated: two every 3weeks (q3w; A: 1.3 mg/m2 3-h or B: 1.5 mg/m2 24-h) and one weekly (C: 0.58 mg/m2 3-h ×3 q4w). Endpoints were response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP), response duration (RD) and safety. 294 patients from 3 phase II (one randomized A vs B) trials were included: 108 were resistant (R) and 186 sensitive (S) to last platinum, based on progression-free interval <6 months or longer.Results: Overall RR and median TTP were 8% and 2.1mo in R and 34% and 5.8 mo in S patients. Median RD was 5.8 m. Schedules A & B q3w showed significant better RR (33% vs 16%, p=<0.0001) and median TTP (5.8 vs 2.8 m, p=0.0001) than the weekly schedule C. No efficacy difference was seen between 3-h and 24-h q3wk. In patients with = 2 prior platinum-based regimens, RR (R:7% and S:37%) and median TTP (R: 2.5 m and S:6.3 m) were similar than patients with only 1 prior platinum [RR (R:9%; S:33%) and TTP (R: 2 m; S: 5.5 m)]. 1,404 cycles were delivered [median A: 5(1–23), B: 5(1–19), C: 3(1–22)], with similar dose intensity (mg/m2/wk) across regimens (0.38, 0.42, 0.39). Most common drug-related AEs of any grade by cycle were (A, B, C) fatigue: 38, 35, 63% and vomiting: 16, 27, 21%. Grade 3/4 lab abnormalities were non-cumulative neutropenia: 21, 28, 1% and ALT increase: 32, 26, 3%. Low incidence of febrile neutropenia, neurotoxicity, stomatitis and alopecia was seen regardless of schedule. Conclusions: Trabectedin as single agent has shown clinical activity in both R and, particularly in S ROC. Activity was fully retained in patients with =2 prior platinum lines. Trabectedin q3w schedules (with no difference between 3 and 24-h) showed higher efficacy than T weekly. Toxicities were manageable and non-cumulative. Trabectedin is a promising new drug for the treatment of ROC and is under evaluation in a phase III trial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Multicenter phase II trial of temsirolimus (TEM) and bevacizumab (BEV) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 260-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Hobday ◽  
Rui Qin ◽  
Diane Lauren Reidy ◽  
Malcolm J Moore ◽  
Jonathan R. Strosberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Mtor Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Entry ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Ecog Ps

260 Background: Recent placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF/ PDGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in PNET noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). However, objective response rates (RR) with these agents are <10%. Preclinical studies suggest enhanced anti-tumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor TEM (25 mg IV q week) and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody BEV (10 mg/kg IV q 2 weeks) in patients (pts) with well or moderately differentiated PNET and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Co-primary endpoints were RR and 6-month PFS. Planned enrollment is 50 patients, with interim analysis after the first 25 evaluable pts. Pts had no prior mTOR or VEGF targeted agents, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Continued octreotide was allowed, but not required. Prior interferon, embolization, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens were allowed. Results: Confirmed PR was documented in 11 of the first 25 (44%) evaluable patients. 20 of 25 (80%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. Both endpoints exceeded pre-defined criteria to continue enrollment. For 35 evaluable patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to therapy were leukopenia (12%), hypertension (12%), hyperglycemia (12%), mucositis (9%), and fatigue (9%). Conclusions: The combination of TEM/BEV has substantial activity in a multi-center phase II trial with RR of 44%, well in excess of single targeted agents in PNET. 6-month PFS was a notable 80% in a population of patients with RECIST criteria progression within 7 months of study entry. Accrual is ongoing. Supported by NCI N01 Contracts: 662205, 62203, 62208, 62209, 62206, 62204, 62207, 62201.

Experience With Bevacizumab in the Management of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (20) ◽  
pp. 2902-2908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Burger
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Taxane Chemotherapy

Müllerian duct adenocarcinomas, in particular epithelial ovarian cancers, continue to represent a major source of female cancer-related morbidity and mortality, despite advances in surgical management and innovations in cytotoxic chemotherapy. Angiogenesis-targeted therapy seems to be appropriate for exploration in these disease processes based on a wealth of evidence from preclinical and molecular epidemiology studies. Bevacizumab is a prototypical agent neutralizing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a critical angiogenic promoter related to tumor progression, malignant effusions, and prognosis in ovarian cancer. Phase II trials have demonstrated the activity of bevacizumab as a single agent and in combination with other modalities such as low-dose metronomic cyclophosphamide. Historical studies have supported these observations. Unique toxicities have been ascribed to the administration of bevacizumab and other anti-VEGF molecules for patients with this disease and other solid tumors. Although most of these toxicities (such as proteinuria, hypertension, and bleeding) are generally mild, and are either self-limiting or controllable, other adverse effects, though uncommon, may be serious (these include arterial thromboembolism, wound healing complications, and GI perforation or fistulae). Phase III trials are now in progress to determine the role of this drug in primary therapy as an adjunct to platinum-taxane chemotherapy. This article reviews the background and rationale for anti-VEGF therapy of ovarian cancer, summarizes efficacy and safety data from phase II trials and historical studies of bevacizumab in this disease, introduces the implementation of bevacizumab in phase III front-line trials, examines controversial aspects related to anti-VEGF therapy, and proposes future directions regarding bevacizumab and other angiogenic growth factor–targeted therapeutics.

ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS): An evaluation of systemic treatment trials for soft tissue sarcomas (STS).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11553-11553
Author(s):  
Abdulazeez Salawu ◽  
Christopher Lemieux ◽  
Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Drug Class ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcomas ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Metastatic Setting

11553 Background: Patients with STS have poor prognosis in the metastatic setting. Although some treatment options are associated with improved outcomes, such as progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS), the overall magnitude of clinical benefit can be unclear. The ESMO MCBS is a validated and reproducible tool developed to quantify the clinical benefit of treatments evaluated in trials ( www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs ). Herein, we report the application of ESMO MCBS to systemic treatment trials involving metastatic STS patients. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases for adult phase II and III trials in advanced STS (01/1998 to 12/2020) was carried out. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor trials were excluded. Outcomes, including but not limited to OS, PFS, objective response rate (ORR), toxicity and quality of life (QoL) data were extracted and analyzed. Studies with outcomes that met the criteria for ESMO MCBS v1.1 were evaluated to generate a score of 1 to 5 (score of ≥ 4: substantial benefit). MCBS scoring of each study was performed by at least 2 co-authors for consensus. Results: Among 3454 abstracts screened, a total of 140 Phase II and 28 phase IIII trials were identified. A total of 41 studies fulfilled the criteria for ESMO MCBS scoring. These include 5 phase III studies, as well as 9 randomized and 27 single-arm phase II trials. Fifteen studies involved specific histology, while remaining 26 studies were of all STS subtypes. Chemotherapy, alone or in combination was evaluated in 29 trials, while molecular-targeted agents (MTA) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO) were evaluated in 11 and 3 studies, respectively (Table). The median MCBS score was 2 (range 1-4), regardless of drug class or combination. Only 3 studies, all randomized in design, had a MCBS score of 4. All three trials were in the 2nd line setting or beyond, where there is no standard control treatment. None of the trials, irrespective of drug class had a score of 5 and no study showed evidence of significant improvement in QoL. The observed MCBS scores were low, partly because the trials evaluated mainly comprise single-arm studies without QoL assessments, restricting to a maximum MCBS score of 3. Conclusions: Most systemic therapy trials in advanced STS did not confer substantial clinical benefit when evaluated using MCBS. Although randomized phase 3 trials remain the gold standard of treatment evaluation, clinical benefit evaluation of STS trials using tools such as MCBS may be useful. Incorporation of QoL evaluation, even in single-arm studies should be prioritized in metastatic STS trials.[Table: see text]

Multicenter phase II trial of temsirolimus (TEM) and bevacizumab (BEV) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET): Results of a planned interim efficacy analysis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4047-4047
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Hobday ◽  
Rui Qin ◽  
Diane Lauren Reidy ◽  
Malcolm J. Moore ◽  
Jonathan R. Strosberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Mtor Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Entry ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Efficacy Analysis

4047 Background: PNET has long had few effective therapies other than chemotherapy. Recent placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF/ PDGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). However, objective response rates (RR) with these agents are still <10%. Preclinical studies suggest enhanced anti-tumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor TEM (25 mg IV q week) and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody BEV (10 mg/kg IV q 2 weeks) in patients (pts) with well or moderately differentiated PNET and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Co-primary endpoints were RR and 6-month PFS. Planned enrollment is 50 patients, with interim analysis for futility after the first 25 evaluable pts. Pts had no prior mTOR or VEGF targeted agents, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Continued octreotide was allowed, but not required. Prior interferon, embolization, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens were allowed. Results: Confirmed PR was documented in 13 of the first 25 (52%) evaluable patients. 21 of 25 (84%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. Both endpoints exceeded the protocol-defined criteria to continue enrollment. For 36 evaluable patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to therapy were hypertension (14%), leukopenia (11%), lymphopenia (11%), hyperglycemia (11%), mucositis (8%), hypokalemia (8%), and fatigue (8%). Conclusions: The combination of TEM/BEV has substantial activity in a multi-center phase II trial with RR of 52%, well in excess of single targeted agents in PNET. 6-month PFS was a notable 84% in a population of patients with RECIST criteria progression within 7 months of study entry. Accrual is ongoing.

scholarly journals Imatinib Mesylate in Advanced Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans: Pooled Analysis of Two Phase II Clinical Trials

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1772-1779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Rutkowski ◽  
Martine Van Glabbeke ◽  
Cathryn J. Rankin ◽  
Wlodzimierz Ruka ◽  
Brian P. Rubin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
End Point ◽  
Best Response

Purpose Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a dermal sarcoma typically carrying a translocation between chromosomes 17 and 22 that generates functional platelet-derived growth factor B (PDGFB). Patients and Methods Two distinct phase II trials of imatinib (400 to 800 mg daily) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic DFSP were conducted and closed prematurely, one in Europe (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC]) with 14-week progression-free rate as the primary end point and the other in North America (Southwest Oncology Group [SWOG]) with confirmed objective response rate as the primary end point. In the EORTC trial, confirmation of PDGFB rearrangement was required, and surgery was undertaken after 14 weeks if feasible. The SWOG study confirmed t(17;22) after enrollment. Results Sixteen and eight patients were enrolled onto the EORTC and SWOG trials, respectively. Tumor size ranged from 1.2 to 49 cm. DFSP was located on head/neck, trunk, and limb in seven, 11, and six patients, respectively, and was classic, pigmented, and fibrosarcomatous DFSP in 13, one, and nine patients, respectively. Metastases were present in seven patients (lung involvement was present six patients). Eleven patients (4%) had partial response as best response, and four patients had progressive disease as best response. Median time to progression (TTP) was 1.7 years. Imatinib was stopped in 11 patients because of progression, one patient because of toxicity, and two patients after complete resection of disease. Median overall survival (OS) time has not been reached; 1-year OS rate was 87.5%. Conclusion Imatinib is active in DFSP harboring t(17;22) including fibrosarcomatous DFSP, with objective response rate approaching 50%. Response rates and TTP did not differ between patients taking 400 mg daily versus 400 mg twice a day.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document