Randomised phase II trials in oncology

The purpose of phase II trials is to identify signals in favor of the efficacy of a drug in development. The main pitfall of a phase II study is to conclude by error that a drug has no activity, leading to a stop in the development of a drug which has a real efficacy. In oncology, more and more phase II trials are randomised, even though there are still numerous non randomised studies. Randomisation allows some control on the risk of patient selection bias, inherent to non randomised trials. This bias consists of recruiting by chance a population of patients with high risk or on the contrary low risk of response to the experimental treatment. The present paper describes the various types of randomised phase II trials, their principles, strengths and limits.     

Phase III trials in oncology

The randomised trial is the best context for the assessment of any new molecule in oncology. The authors emphasize the methodological aspects of randomised trials and suggest strategies to be adopted in phase III trials, based on the newly orthodox concept of evidence-based medicine, while underscoring the need for context specific adaptations to increase relevance and specificity of sought endpoints, including other means of controlling adequately the clinical experiment without randomization (patient as his own control models). The authors also suggest certain strategic changes. For example, restrictive but relevant eligibility criteria may help decrease the number of patients needed without compromising statistical power as well as other strategies aimed at proving the efficacy of a new molecule without carrying out large trials, which are too long and costly.     

Adaptive clinical trials in oncology

Modern oncology drug development faces challenges very different from those of the past and it must adapt accordingly. The size and expense of phase III clinical trials continue to increase, but the success rate remains unacceptably low. Adaptive trial designs can make development more informative, addressing whether a drug is safe and effective while showing how it should be delivered and to whom. An adaptive design is one in which the accumulating data are used to modify the trial's course. Adaptive designs are ideal for addressing many questions at once. For example, a single trial might identify the appropriate patient population, dose and regimen, and therapeutic combinations, and then switch seamlessly into a phase III confirmatory trial. Adaptive designs rely on information, including from patients who have not achieved the trial's primary end point. Longitudinal models of biomarkers (including tumor burden assessed via imaging) enable predictions of primary end points. Taking a Bayesian perspective facilitates building an efficient and accurate trial, including using longitudinal information. A wholly new paradigm for drug development exemplifying personalized medicine is evinced by an adaptive trial called I-SPY2, in which drugs from many companies are evaluated in the same trial--a phase II screening process.     

Randomized clinical trials in surgical oncology

Are randomized clinical trials needed to evaluate new therapies? Judging from the number of randomized trials which get published in medical journals, the answer seems to be unequivocally positive. No new drug may be put on the market without at least two randomized studies showing its benefit. In comparison, prospective, controlled and randomized studies are rather more sparse in the evaluation of new surgical approaches. Moreover, the kinds of trials that are performed to test new anti-cancer drugs may not provide an appropriate model to establish the worth of treatments given as adjuvant to surgery. This paper briefly discusses some reasons why trials should be more common in surgical oncology, and some ways in which they could be made more pertinent.     

Phase II clinical trials in oncology: strengths and limitations of two-stage designs

Two-stage designs are used widely in Phase II oncology clinical trials to reduce the number of patients placed on ineffective experimental therapies. They provide clear-cut rules for stopping early in the event that treatment is not succeeding as hoped and are relatively simple to implement. Such designs, however, can lead to situations in which patient accrual is continued in the face of a clearly inferior treatment. In situations where patients' response can be determined for many or most subjects before additional patients are enrolled, analyses using Bayesian methodology can lead to earlier termination of studies of ineffective treatments and better align the statistical assessment of treatment effect with the therapeutic objectives of study. These points are discussed in context of the role of Phase II clinical trials in the development of new treatments for cancer.     

Ethical guideposts to clinical trials in oncology

Clinical research with human subjects is an ethically challenging task requiring ultimate trust on the part of patients and ultimate respect for persons on the part of clinical researchers. The author provides a simple framework to help researchers ensure the ethical integrity of a clinical trial in oncology.     

Key clinical trials in gynaecological oncology.

AIMS: To review the most important clinical trials which have impacted the management of gynaecological cancers, in conjunction with some ongoing studies of interest. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched to find clinical trials and meta-analyses in vulva, cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancers. Other pertinent literature was also used. RESULTS: The majority of trials related to ovarian and cervical cancers, and the least associated with vulval cancer. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure evidence based medicine, trials in gynaecological cancers must be supported. Notably, surgical trials are on the increase in the last decade, but are still a minority when compared with non-surgical interventions.     

Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials in oncology

A meta-analysis is a quantitative synthesis of randomised clinical trials, used to evaluate moderate treatment effects in oncology. It is complementary to large-scale trials. We describes the principles, methods, and limits of meta-analyses. The gold standard for a meta-analysis is to obtain individual patient data directly from each principal investigator, but this is time-consuming and costly. The main steps of a meta-analysis using individual patient data are described. Multidisciplinary collaboration is needed for clinical insight and critical review of the data and results. Meta-analysis should include an evaluation of the trial quality, a quantification of the overall treatment effect, a study of the variations seen in this effect between trials, and pre-planned exploratory analyses to identify groups of patients who may benefit more from the treatment. Statistical methods are explained using real working examples. Since literature-based meta-analysis can lead to seriously biased assessments, meta-analyses of individual patient data should be undertaken systematically when long-term follow-up is needed, when a detailed analysis is important, or when the literature-based meta-analyses are not in agreement. The main factors which influence the quality of a meta-analysis are discussed.     

Quality control of oncology clinical trials

This article discusses issues that are essential to ensuring the reliability of the conclusions of oncology clinical trials. Though quality control is important at every stage of a well-run clinical trial, the authors focus on the quality of the data as evidenced by the results and conclusions of the study. Good quality control principles and practices are discussed for study planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation.     

The grading of lymphedema in oncology clinical trials

Lymphedema is a common late toxicity of cancer therapy. This article describes the rationale and process utilized by the Lymphedema Working Group for the revision and expansion of the Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (CTC v2.0) lymphedema criteria to produce the CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria. Established clinician-based rating scales and quantitative instruments are reviewed in this article. None of the extant rating scales have been formally validated, nor has their reliability been assessed. Drawbacks of current scales were considered in formulating CTC v3.0 criteria. Most rely exclusively on volume to diagnose and grade lymphedema. This imposes significant clinical limitations, particularly in the assessment of toxicity in oncology clinical trials. Volume-based rating scales are of little value in rating the severity of bilateral limb and nonlimb edema. Problems with nonvolumetric staging systems (eg, CTC v2.0) include insufficient detail to permit useful discrimination of severity among the majority of lymphedema patients. Technologies for objectively quantifying lymphedema have been developed and validated. Although these are briefly reviewed, it is recognized that cost and access issues limit their widespread clinical utility and, as such, were not considered in developing the CTC v3.0 criteria. The CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria adopted several innovations. Principle among these was the decision to generate separate criteria for volumetric increase, dermal changes, and subcutaneous fibrosis. We anticipate the use of the new CTC v3.0 lymphedema criteria to begin in mid-2003 for grading the key clinical features of this disorder in oncology clinical trials. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with (1) background on the clinical features of lymphedema, (2) information on established lymphedema rating systems, (3) the consensus process and rationale of the Lymphedema Working Group, (4) the new CTC v3.0, and (5) quantitative techniques for assessment of lymphedema.     

Phase 1 clinical trials in 83 patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND:

The outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer treated on early phase clinical trials have not been systematically analyzed. The purpose of this study was to report the presenting characteristics and outcomes of patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated on phase 1 clinical trials at a single institution.

METHODS:

The authors reviewed the records of consecutive patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who were treated in the Phase I Clinical Trials Program at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from November 2004 to March 2009. Data recorded and analyzed included survival, response, and disease characteristics.

RESULTS:

Eighty‐three patients were identified. The median age was 62 years (range, 39‐81 years). Of 78 patients evaluable for response, 2 (3%) had a partial response (PR), and 10 (13%) had stable disease (SD) for ≥4 months. With a median follow‐up for survivors of 3.7 months, the median survival from presentation in the phase 1 clinic was 5.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3‐6.2). The median overall survival from diagnosis was 22.1 months (95% CI, 17.9‐26.5). The median time to treatment failure was 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.3‐1.8). Independent factors associated with lower rates of PR/SD were liver metastases (P = .001) and performance status >0 (P = .01). Independent factors associated with shorter survival were liver metastases (P = .007), low calcium level (P = .015), and elevated CEA level (>6 ng/mL) (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results suggest that phase 1 clinical trials offer a reasonable therapeutic approach for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer 2011. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Integrating pain metrics into oncology clinical trials

Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent and often severe, and as a result is often one of the defining experiences for patients with malignancy. Patients and patients' families almost always live with the ever-present reality that cancer treatment and progression may be accompanied by pain. For patients nearing the end of life, most fear that their final days will be spent living with the terrible effects of the disease, the most important of which is pain. Despite this, there is far less systematic research on the mechanisms of cancer-related pain or on the development of new agents to reduce or eliminate pain in cancer patients compared with research to combat the disease itself. Further, even when the focus of research is treatment of the tumor, the effects of anticancer treatments on pain are often underreported in publications and other forums. To illustrate the relative drought in the cancer pain control area, there have been no new drugs approved for cancer-related pain in recent years. A number of methodologic and logistical challenges that hinder the ability to assess pain response in clinical trials are discussed in this article. Possible ways to address these challenges are also discussed.     

The changing face of Phase 1 cancer clinical trials

Phase 1 studies in cancer have changed in recent years. Now, with the advent of new, less toxic, targeted agents, more patients may be candidates for new drug studies earlier in the course of their disease. It is to the advantage of the members of the oncology community to know more regarding the details and requirements for participation in early‐phase clinical trials so they can advocate for their patients and help them decide when such trials may be an appropriate choice. To examine the work intensity of early phase cancer clinical trials, the authors of this report compared the study requirements of phase 1 and 2 protocols. Five parameters were studied as a surrogate of study complexity—the number of physical examinations, vital sign determinations, electrocardiograms (ECGs), nonpharmacokinetic laboratory tests, and pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling—in the first 4 weeks of protocol in 90 studies (49 phase 1 studies and 41 phase 2 studies). From July 2004 through March 2007, there were 49 phase 1 trials in the phase 1 Program, 9 phase 2 studies that were conducted by physicians appointed in that program, and 32 phase 2 trials with accessible data in the Department of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology. In the phase 1 trials versus the phase 2 trials, there were significantly more (P < .05) physical examinations (mean ± standard error, 3.16 ± 0.24 vs 2.22 ± 0.13), vital sign determinations (5.63 ± 0.61 vs 2.80 ± 0.26), ECGs (4.36 ± 1.16 vs 0.80 ± 0.17), nonpharmacokinetic laboratory tests (18.08 ± 1.31 vs 10.12 ± 0.65), and PK sampling (15.14 ± 1.79 vs 1.02 ± 0.53). These values also differed significantly (P < .005 for each) when the median values were compared in nonparametric tests. Although both phase 1 and phase 2 trials had substantial study requirements, those for the phase 1 studies were significantly higher. The successful conduct of early‐phase clinical trials requires significant research infrastructure. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology

BackgroundBias in reporting efficacy and toxicity in clinical trials may impact treatment decisions. Here, we report quality of reporting of efficacy and of toxicity in articles describing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer therapy and the association between biased reporting and study results, funding and financial relationships of the authors with the sponsor.Materials and methodsWe reviewed articles published from July 2010 to December 2012 in six high-impact journals reporting RCTs of systemic treatment for cancer. Bias in reporting of the primary end-point and toxicity were assessed. Associations between biased reporting and study results, funding source and financial ties of the author with the funding source were evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsTwo hundred articles were identified. Among 107 RCTs where there was no statistically significant difference in the primary end-point between the two arms, 50 (47%) reports used biased reporting in the abstract of the paper to imply benefit of the experimental treatment. Toxicity was not reported in the abstract in 18.5% of the studies and this was associated with a positive primary end-point. Source of funding and financial ties were not associated with biased reporting.ConclusionsBias in reporting of efficacy outcomes is common for studies with a negative primary end-point and can lead to off-label misuse of experimental therapies, if they are approved for other indications. Toxicity is under-reported, especially for studies with a positive primary end-point, leading to a biased view of the safety of new treatments.