| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Cancer Therapy: Clinical |
Authors' Affiliations: 1 National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada and 2 Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Requests for reprints: Lesley Seymour, Investigational New Drug Program, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Ontario K7L3N6, Canada; E-mail: lseymour{at}ctg.queensu.ca.
Purpose: Tumor responses in early-phase trials are used to determine whether new agents warrant further study. Given that spontaneous regressions are observed in melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, this study assessed whether tumor responses, particularly in these two tumor types, predict for future regulatory drug approval.
Experimental Design: The literature was reviewed to assess tumor response rates to cytotoxic agents in phase I and II trials in the following solid tumors: melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and other solid tumors. Response rates were categorized and the relationship of these categories to the end point of regulatory drug approval was determined.
Results: Fifty-eight drugs were assessed in 100 phase I trials, and 46 of these drugs were also studied in 499 phase II trials. Higher overall response rates in both phase I trials (P = 0.03) and phase II trials (P < 0.0001) were predictive of regulatory approval. However, response in melanoma or renal cell carcinoma was not predictive for either phase I or phase II studies.
Conclusions: For cytotoxic agents, although overall objective response rates reliably predict subsequent marketing approval, isolated responses in melanoma and renal cell carcinoma are not predictive.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. R. Benz, M. S. Allen-Auerbach, F. C. Eilber, H. J.J. Chen, S. Dry, M. E. Phelps, J. Czernin, and W. A. Weber Combined Assessment of Metabolic and Volumetric Changes for Assessment of Tumor Response in Patients with Soft-Tissue Sarcomas J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2008; 49(10): 1579 - 1584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. R. Goffin and D. Tu Phase II Stopping Rules That Employ Response Rates and Early Progression J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2008; 26(22): 3715 - 3720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. H. El-Maraghi and E. A. Eisenhauer Review of Phase II Trial Designs Used in Studies of Molecular Targeted Agents: Outcomes and Predictors of Success in Phase III J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2008; 26(8): 1346 - 1354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dowlati and P. Fu Is Response Rate Relevant to the Phase II Trial Design of Targeted Agents? J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2008; 26(8): 1204 - 1205. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Boden, Y. Eriksson-Alm, E. Berg, H. Fujii, A. Kubo, and L. Blomqvist Radiologic Measurements of Tumor Response to Treatment: Practical Approaches and Limitations RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 329 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Weber and R. Figlin Monitoring Cancer Treatment with PET/CT: Does It Make a Difference? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 36S - 44S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Ratain In Reply J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2006; 24(28): 4670 - 4671. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Ratain Phase II Oncology Trials: Let's Be Positive Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2005; 11(16): 5661 - 5662. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
