Dose-response relationship in phase 1 clinical trials: a European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study

Introduction: Because a dose–response relationship is characteristic of conventional chemotherapy, this concept is widely used for the development of novel cytotoxic (CTX) drugs. However, the need to reach the MTD to obtain optimal benefit with molecularly targeted agents (MTA) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between dose and efficacy in a large cohort of phase I patients with solid tumors.

Experimental Design: We collected data on 1,182 consecutive patients treated in phase I trials in 14 European institutions in 2005–2007. Inclusion criteria were: (i) patients treated within completed single-agent studies in which a maximum-administered dose was defined and (ii) RECIST/survival data available.

Results: Seventy-two percent of patients were included in trials with MTA (N = 854) and 28% in trials with CTX (N = 328). The objective response (OR) rate was 3% and disease control at 6 months was 11%. OR for CTX was associated with higher doses (median 92% of MTD); this was not the case for MTA, where patients achieving OR received a median of 50% of MTD. For trials with MTA, patients treated at intermediate doses (40%–80%) had better survival compared with those receiving low or high doses (P = 0.038). On the contrary, there was a direct association between higher dose and better OS for CTX agents (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Although these results support the development of novel CTX based on MTD, we found no direct relationship between higher doses and response with MTA in unselected patients. However, the longest OS was seen in patients treated with MTA at intermediate doses (40%–80% of MTD)

Is the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique ready for use in clinical trials in infants with cystic fibrosis?

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society Clinical Trial Network (ECFS-CTN) has established a Standardization Committee to undertake a rigorous evaluation of promising outcome measures with regard to use in multicentre clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this article is to present a review of literature on clinimetric properties of the infant raised-volume rapid thoracic compression (RVRTC) technique in the context of CF, to summarise the consensus amongst the group on feasibility and answer key questions regarding the promotion of this technique to surrogate endpoint status.

METHODS: A literature search (from 1985 onwards) identified 20 papers that met inclusion criteria of RVRTC use in infants with CF. Data were extracted and tabulated regarding repeatability, validity, correlation with other outcome measures, responsiveness and reference values. A working group discussed the tables and answered 4 key questions.

RESULTS: Overall, RVRTC in particular forced expiratory volume in 0.5s, showed good clinimetric properties despite presence of individual variability. Few studies showed a relationship between RVRTC and inflammation and infection, and to date, data remains limited regarding the responsiveness of RVRTC after an intervention. Concerns were raised regarding feasibility in multi-centre studies and availability of reference values.

CONCLUSION: The ECFS-CTN Working Group considers that RVRTC cannot be used as a primary outcome in clinical trials in infants with CF before universal standardization of this measurement is achieved and implementation of inter-institutional networking is in place. We advise its use currently in phase I/II trials and as a secondary endpoint in phase III studies. We emphasise the need for (1) more short-term variability and longitudinal 'natural history' studies, and (2) robust reference values for commercially available devices.

A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Causality Assessment in Early Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: A Phenomenological Study

Research Question: What are the psychosocial factors that affect causality assessment in early phase oncology clinical trials? Methods: Thirty-two qualitative interviews were explicated with the aid of “Naturalistic Decision Making”. Data explication consisted of phenomenological reduction, delineating and clustering meaning units, forming themes, and creating a composite summary. Participants were members of the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Clinical Trial Group Investigative New Drug committee. Results: The process of assigning causality is extremely subjective and full of uncertainty. Physicians had no formal training, nor a tool to assist them with this process. Physicians were apprehensive about their decisions and felt pressure from their patients, as well as the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the trial. Conclusions: There are many problem areas when attributing causality, all of which have serious consequences, but clinicians used a variety of methods to cope with these problem areas.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.

Bayesian design and conduct of phase II single-arm clinical trials with binary outcomes: a tutorial

The aim of phase II single-arm clinical trials of a new drug is to determine whether it has sufficient promising activity to warrant its further development. For the last several years Bayesian statistical methods have been proposed and used. Bayesian approaches are ideal for earlier phase trials as they take into account information that accrues during a trial. Predictive probabilities are then updated and so become more accurate as the trial progresses. Suitable priors can act as pseudo samples, which make small sample clinical trials more informative. Thus patients have better chances to receive better treatments. The goal of this paper is to provide a tutorial for statisticians who use Bayesian methods for the first time or investigators who have some statistical background. In addition, real data from three clinical trials are presented as examples to illustrate how to conduct a Bayesian approach for phase II single-arm clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Interim analyses and sequential designs in phase III studies

Recruitment of patients to a clinical trial usually occurs over a period of time, resulting in the steady accumulation of data throughout the trial's duration. Yet, according to traditional statistical methods, the sample size of the trial should be determined in advance, and data collected on all subjects before analysis proceeds. For ethical and economic reasons, the technique of sequential testing has been developed to enable the examination of data at a series of interim analyses. The aim is to stop recruitment to the study as soon as there is sufficient evidence to reach a firm conclusion. In this paper we present the advantages and disadvantages of conducting interim analyses in phase III clinical trials, together with the key steps to enable the successful implementation of sequential methods in this setting. Examples are given of completed trials, which have been carried out sequentially, and references to relevant literature and software are provided.

A phase III randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial to determine the efficacy of low level laser therapy for the prevention of oral mucositis in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation

Introduction Oral mucositis (OM) is a significant early complication of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). This phase III randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was designed to compare the ability of 2 different low level GaAlAs diode lasers (650 nm and 780 nm) to prevent oral mucositis in HCT patients conditioned with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.Materials and methods Seventy patients were enrolled and randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups: 650 nm laser, 780 nm laser or placebo. All active laser treatment patients received daily direct laser treatment to the lower labial mucosa, right and left buccal mucosa, lateral and ventral surfaces of the tongue, and floor of mouth with energy densities of 2 J/cm(2). Study treatment began on the first day of conditioning and continued through day +2 post HCT. Mucositis and oral pain was measured on days 0, 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 21 post HCT.Results the 650 nm wavelength reduced the severity of oral mucositis and pain scores. Low level laser therapy was well-tolerated and no adverse events were noted.Discussion While these results are encouraging, further study is needed to truly establish the efficacy of this mucositis prevention strategy. Future research needs to determine the effects of modification of laser parameters (e.g., wavelength, fluence, repetition rate of energy delivery, etc.) on the effectiveness of LLE laser to prevent OM.

Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

Purpose Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2: 1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. Results In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. Conclusion Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC. J Clin Oncol 30:3596-3603. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Communication about standard treatment options and clinical trials: can we teach doctors new skills to improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The International Breast Cancer Study Group conducted a phase III trial in Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) and Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres on training doctors in clear and ethical information delivery about treatment options and strategies to encourage shared decision making. METHODS: Medical, surgical, gynaecological and radiation oncologists, and their patients for whom adjuvant breast cancer therapy was indicated, were eligible. Doctors were randomised to participate in a workshop with standardised teaching material and role playing. Patients were recruited in the experimental and control groups before and after the workshop. RESULTS: In ANZ centres, 21 eligible doctors recruited a total of 304 assessable patients. In SGA centres, 41 doctors recruited 390 patients. The training was well accepted. There was no overall effect on patient decisional conflict (primary endpoint) 2 weeks after the consultation. Overall, patients were satisfied with their treatment decision, their consultation and their doctors' consultation skills. Considerable variation was observed in patient outcomes between SGA and ANZ centres; the effect sizes of the intervention were marginal (<0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making remains a challenge. A sustained training effect may require more intensive training tailored to the local setting. Cross-cultural differences need attention in conducting trials on communication interventions.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Bayesian doubly optimal group sequential designs for randomized clinical trials

When conducting a randomized comparative clinical trial, ethical, scientific or economic considerations often motivate the use of interim decision rules after successive groups of patients have been treated. These decisions may pertain to the comparative efficacy or safety of the treatments under study, cost considerations, the desire to accelerate the drug evaluation process, or the likelihood of therapeutic benefit for future patients. At the time of each interim decision, an important question is whether patient enrollment should continue or be terminated; either due to a high probability that one treatment is superior to the other, or a low probability that the experimental treatment will ultimately prove to be superior. The use of frequentist group sequential decision rules has become routine in the conduct of phase III clinical trials. In this dissertation, we will present a new Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to the problem of designing a randomized group sequential clinical trial, focusing on two-arm trials with time-to-failure outcomes. Forward simulation is used to obtain optimal decision boundaries for each of a set of possible models. At each interim analysis, we use Bayesian model selection to adaptively choose the model having the largest posterior probability of being correct, and we then make the interim decision based on the boundaries that are optimal under the chosen model. We provide a simulation study to compare this method, which we call Bayesian Doubly Optimal Group Sequential (BDOGS), to corresponding frequentist designs using either O'Brien-Fleming (OF) or Pocock boundaries, as obtained from EaSt 2000. Our simulation results show that, over a wide variety of different cases, BDOGS either performs at least as well as both OF and Pocock, or on average provides a much smaller trial. ^

Bayesian adaptive designs for drug combinations in early phase clinical trials

Treating patients with combined agents is a growing trend in cancer clinical trials. Evaluating the synergism of multiple drugs is often the primary motivation for such drug-combination studies. Focusing on the drug combination study in the early phase clinical trials, our research is composed of three parts: (1) We conduct a comprehensive comparison of four dose-finding designs in the two-dimensional toxicity probability space and propose using the Bayesian model averaging method to overcome the arbitrariness of the model specification and enhance the robustness of the design; (2) Motivated by a recent drug-combination trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a continuous-dose standard of care agent and a discrete-dose investigational agent, we propose a two-stage Bayesian adaptive dose-finding design based on an extended continual reassessment method; (3) By combining phase I and phase II clinical trials, we propose an extension of a single agent dose-finding design. We model the time-to-event toxicity and efficacy to direct dose finding in two-dimensional drug-combination studies. We conduct extensive simulation studies to examine the operating characteristics of the aforementioned designs and demonstrate the designs' good performances in various practical scenarios.^