Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies

Neesha Dhani, Dongsheng Tu, Daniel J. Sargent, Lesley Seymour, Malcolm J. Moore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

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 oftumor 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1873-1882
Number of pages10
JournalClinical Cancer Research
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 15 2009

Fingerprint

Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
Disease-Free Survival
Biomarkers
Clinical Trials
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Dhani, N., Tu, D., Sargent, D. J., Seymour, L., & Moore, M. J. (2009). Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. Clinical Cancer Research, 15(6), 1873-1882. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034

Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. / Dhani, Neesha; Tu, Dongsheng; Sargent, Daniel J.; Seymour, Lesley; Moore, Malcolm J.

In: Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 15, No. 6, 15.03.2009, p. 1873-1882.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dhani, N, Tu, D, Sargent, DJ, Seymour, L & Moore, MJ 2009, 'Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies', Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1873-1882. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034
Dhani N, Tu D, Sargent DJ, Seymour L, Moore MJ. Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. Clinical Cancer Research. 2009 Mar 15;15(6):1873-1882. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034
Dhani, Neesha ; Tu, Dongsheng ; Sargent, Daniel J. ; Seymour, Lesley ; Moore, Malcolm J. / Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. In: Clinical Cancer Research. 2009 ; Vol. 15, No. 6. pp. 1873-1882.
@article{796c5dcf60ed43e7a8bf11a067d8776a,
title = "Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies",
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 oftumor 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.",
author = "Neesha Dhani and Dongsheng Tu and Sargent, {Daniel J.} and Lesley Seymour and Moore, {Malcolm J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "1873--1882",
journal = "Clinical Cancer Research",
issn = "1078-0432",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies

AU - Dhani, Neesha

AU - Tu, Dongsheng

AU - Sargent, Daniel J.

AU - Seymour, Lesley

AU - Moore, Malcolm J.

PY - 2009/3/15

Y1 - 2009/3/15

N2 - 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 oftumor 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.

AB - 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 oftumor 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=63449116467&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=63449116467&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034

DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2034

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 1873

EP - 1882

JO - Clinical Cancer Research

JF - Clinical Cancer Research

SN - 1078-0432

IS - 6

ER -