A randomised phase II study of two different schedules of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in metastatic breast cancer (EORTC-10993).

One hundred and sixteen women with measurable metastatic breast cancer participated in a randomised phase II study of single agent liposomal pegylated doxorubicin (Caelyx) given either as a 60 mg/m2 every 6 weeks (ARM A) or 50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (ARM B) schedule. Patients were over 65 years of age or, if younger, had refused or been unsuitable for standard anthracyclines. The aims of the study were to evaluate toxicity and dose delivery with the two schedules and obtain further information on the response rate of liposomal pegylated doxorubicin as a single agent in anthracycline nai ve advanced breast cancer. Twenty-six patients had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (including an anthracycline in 10). Sixteen had received non-anthracycline-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced disease. One hundred and eleven patients were evaluable for toxicity and 106 for response. The delivered dose intensity (DI) was 9.8 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.2-10.4) with 37 (69%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM A and 11.9 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8) with 37 (65%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM B. The adverse event profiles of the two schedules were distinctly different. Mucositis was more common with the every 6 weeks regimen (35% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 14% in ARM B) but palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was more frequent with the every 4 weeks regimen (2% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 16% in ARM B). Confirmed objective partial responses by RECIST criteria were seen with both schedules; 15/51 (29%) on ARM A and 17/56 (31%) on ARM B. Liposomal pegylated doxorubicin showed significant activity in advanced breast cancer with a generally favourable side-effect profile. The high frequency of stomatitis seen with 6 weekly treatment makes this the less preferred of the two schedules tested.

A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Docetaxel is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapies for patients with node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three consecutive groups of patients with node-positive breast cancer or locally-advanced disease, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential A-->T-->CMF: doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF days 1 + 8 q 4 weeks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A-->T-->CMF: A and T were administered at the same doses q 2 weeks; c) combination therapy: doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 4, followed by CMF x 4. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and tamoxifen started after the end of CMF. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients have been treated. Median age was 48 years. A 30% rate of early treatment discontinuation was observed in patients receiving the sequential accelerated therapy (23% during A-->T), due principally to severe skin toxicity. Median relative dose-intensity was 100% in the three treatment arms. The incidence of G3-G4 major toxicities by treated patients, was as follows: skin toxicity a: 5%; b: 27%; c: 0%; stomatitis a: 20%; b: 20%; c: 3%. The incidence of neutropenic fever was a: 30%; b: 13%; c: 48%. After a median follow-up of 18 months, no late toxicity has been reported. CONCLUSIONS: The accelerated sequential A-->T-->CMF treatment is not feasible due to an excess of skin toxicity. The sequential non accelerated and the combination regimens are feasible and under evaluation in a phase III trial of adjuvant therapy.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with breast cancer: a survey of the Breast International Group (BIG).

BACKGROUND: To collect oncologists' experience and opinion on adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated among the members of the Breast International Group. RESULTS: A total of 277 oncologists from 28 countries participated in the survey. Seventy years is the age cut-off commonly used to define a patient as elderly. Biological age and the biological characteristics of the tumor are the most frequently used criteria to propose adjuvant chemotherapy to an elderly patient. Combination therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil on days 1 and 8 is the most frequently prescribed regimen. Great interest exists in oral chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: There is interest among those who responded to the survey to validate a comprehensive geriatric assessment for use as a predictive instrument of toxicity and/or activity of anticancer therapy and to evaluate the role of a treatment option that is potentially less toxic and possibly as effective as polychemotherapy.

An EORTC phase I study of epirubicin in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fu (CEF-infu) as primary treatment of large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The association of continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin (50 mg/m2 q 3 weeks) and a platinum compound (cisplatin or carboplatin) was found to be very active in patients with either locally advanced/inflammatory (LA/I) [1, 2] or large operable (LO) breast cancer (BC) [3]. The same rate of activity in terms of response rate (RR) and response duration was observed in LA/I BC patients when cisplatin was replaced by cyclophosphamide [4]. The dose of epirubicin was either 50 mg/m2 [ 1, 2, 3] or 60 mg/m2/cycle [4]. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of epirubicin when given in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fluorouracil (CEF-infu) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with LO or LA/I BC for a maximum of 6 cycles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had LO or LA/I BC, a performance status 0-1, adequate organ function and were <65 years old. Cyclophosphamide was administered at the dose of 400 mg/m2 day 1 and 8, q 4 weeks and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day was given day 1-28, q 4 weeks. Epirubicin was escalated from 30 to 45 and to 60 mg/m2 day 1 and 8; dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first 2 cycles of therapy. DLT for epirubicin was defined as febrile neutropenia, grade 4 neutropenia lasting for >7 days, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, or any non-haematological toxicity of CTC grade > or =3, excluding alopecia and plantar-palmar erythrodysesthesia (this toxicity was attributable to infusional 5-fluorouracil and was not considered a DLT of epirubicin). RESULTS: A total of 21 patients, median age 44 years (range 29-63) have been treated. 107 courses have been delivered, with a median number of 5 cycles per patient (range 4-6). DLTs on cycles I and 2 on level 1, 2, 3: grade 3 (G3) mucositis occurred in 1/10 patients treated at the third dose level. An interim analysis showed that G3 PPE occurred in 5/16 pts treated with the 28-day infusional 5-FU schedule at the 3 dose levels. The protocol was subsequently amended to limit the duration of infusional 5-fluorouracil infusion from 4 to 3 weeks. No G3 PPE was detected in 5 patients treated with this new schedule. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that epirubicin 60mg/m2 day 1 and 8, cyclophosphamide 400mg/m2 day 1 and 8 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day day 1-21. q 4 weeks is the recommended dose level. Given the encouraging activity of this regimen (15/21 clinical responses) we have replaced infusional 5-fluorouracil by oral capecitabine in a recently activated study.

Promising results with exemestane in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II EORTC trial with a tamoxifen control.

Because tamoxifen (TAM), a nonsteroidal antiestrogen, is routinely used in the adjuvant setting, other hormone therapies are needed as alternatives for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Currently, exemestane (EXE) and other antiaromatase agents are indicated for use in patients who experience failure of TAM. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, TAM-controlled (20 mg/day), phase II trial, we examined the activity and tolerability of EXE 25 mg/day for the first-line treatment of MBC in postmenopausal women. Exemestane was well tolerated and demonstrated substantial first-line antitumor activity based on intent-to-treat analysis of peer-reviewed responses. In the EXE arm, values for complete, partial, and objective response, clinical benefit, and time to tumor progression (TTP) exceeded those reported for TAM although no statistical comparison was made. Based on these encouraging results, a phase III trial will compare EXE and TAM.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.

An EORTC-IDBBC phase I study of gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines or pre-treated with both anthracyclines and taxanes.

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and potential activity of combined gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are resistant to anthracyclines or have been pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes. 15 patients with MBC were studied at three European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer centres. 13 patients had received both anthracylines and taxanes. Gemcitabine was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, and 5-FU as a continuous i.v. infusion on days 1 through to 14, both drugs given in a 21-day schedule at four different dose levels. Both were given at doses commonly used for the single agents for the last dose level (dose level 4). One of 6 patients at level 4 (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m2 and 5-FU 250 mg/m2/day) had a DLT, a grade 3 stomatitis and skin toxicity. One DLT, a grade 3 transaminase rise and thrombosis, occurred in a patient at level 2 (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day). Thus, the MTD was not reached. One partial response and four disease stabilisations were observed. Only 1 patient withdrew from the treatment due to toxicity. The MTD was not reached in the phase I study. The combination of gemcitabine and 5-FU is well tolerated at doses up to 1200 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 8 and 250 mg/m2/day given on days 1 through to 14, respectively, every 21 days. The clinical benefit rate (responses plus no change of at least 6 months) was 33% with one partial response, suggesting that MBC patients with prior anthracycline and taxane therapy may derive significant benefit from this combination with minimal toxicity.

Randomized, controlled trial investigating short-term health-related quality of life with doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Group, Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer and the New Drug Development Group Study.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions.

Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

An EORTC phase I study of capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and epirubicin (cex) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

In breast cancer, chemotherapy regimens that include infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) lead to high response rates, but require central venous access and pumps. To avoid these inconveniences, we substituted infusional 5-FU with capecitabine. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine when given in combination with fixed doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (100 and 600 mg/m(2) day 1 every (q) 3 weeks) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer without distant metastasis. Capecitabine was escalated from 750 mg/m(2) twice a day (bid) to 1250 mg/m(2) bid from day 1 to day 14 in four dose levels. Dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). A total of 23 patients were included and 117 courses were administered. At dose level 4, 2 of 2 patients presented DLTs defining the MTD. A high rate of capecitabine treatment modification was required with capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 3). 19 patients achieved an objective response (83%). In conclusion, we believe that capecitabine 900 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 2) is the recommended dose in combination with epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2). The acceptable toxicity profile and encouraging activity of this regimen warrant further evaluation.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

The effect of exemestane on serum lipid profile in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: a companion study to EORTC Trial 10951, 'Randomized phase II study in first line hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer with exemestane or tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients'.

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B or Lip a levels at 8, 24 and 48 weeks of treatment. Exemestane and tamoxifen had opposite effects on TRG levels: exemestane lowered while tamoxifen increased TRG levels over time. There were too few patients with normal baseline TC and abnormal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels to allow for assessment of E's impact on these subsets. The atherogenic risk determined by Apo A1:Apo B and TC:HDL ratios remained unchanged throughout the treatment period in both the E and T arms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, exemestane has no detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices, which are well-known risk factors for coronary artery disease. In addition, it has a beneficial effect on TRG levels. These data, coupled with E's excellent efficacy and tolerability, support further exploration of its potential in the metastatic, adjuvant and chemopreventive setting.

Bone fractures among postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer treated with 5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial.

To compare the incidence and timing of bone fractures in postmenopausal women treated with 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or letrozole for endocrine-responsive early breast cancer in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial.

Androgens and breast cancer

We have recently demonstrated that physiological levels of androgens exert direct and potent inhibitory effects on the growth of human breast cancer ZR-75-1 cells in vivo in nude mice as well as in vitro under both basal and estrogen-stimulated conditions. The inhibitory effect of androgens has also been confirmed on the growth of dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-induced mammary carcinoma in the rat. Such observations are in close agreement with the clinical data showing that androgens and the androgenic compound medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) have beneficial effects in breast cancer in women comparable to other endocrine therapies, including tamoxifen. Although the inhibitory action of androgens on cell proliferation in estrogen-induced ZR-75-1 cells results, in part, from their suppressive effect on expression of the estrogen receptor, the androgens also exert a direct inhibitory effect independent of estrogens. Androgens cause a global slowing effect on the duration of the cell cycle. These observations support clinical data showing that androgenic compounds induce an objective remission after failure of antiestrogen therapy as well as those indicating that the antiproliferative action of androgens is additive to that of antiestrogens. We have also recently demonstrated in ZR-75-1 human breast cancer cells the antagonism between androgens and estrogens on the expression of GCDFP-15 and GCDFP-24 which are two major proteins secreted in human gross cystic disease fluid. The effects of androgens and estrogens as well as those of progestins and glucocorticoids on GCDFP-15 and GCDFP-24 mRNA levels and secretion are opposite to those induced by the same steroids on cell growth in ZR-75-1 cells.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.