European Journal of Cancer
Volume 44, Issue 1 , Pages 8-11 , January 2008

Recommended changes to oncology clinical trial design: Revolution or evolution?

  • Mark J. Ratain

      Affiliations

    • University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: +1 773 702 4400; fax: +1 773 702 3969.
    • ,
  • Rachel W. Humphrey

      Affiliations

    • Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA
    • ,
  • Gary B. Gordon

      Affiliations

    • Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA
    • ,
  • Gwen Fyfe

      Affiliations

    • Genentech, San Francisco, CA, USA
    • ,
  • Peter C. Adamson

      Affiliations

    • Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    • ,
  • Thomas R. Fleming

      Affiliations

    • University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
    • ,
  • Walter M. Stadler

      Affiliations

    • University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
    • ,
  • Donald A. Berry

      Affiliations

    • MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
    • ,
  • Carl C. Peck

      Affiliations

    • University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

Received 10 September 2007 ,Accepted 19 September 2007.

References 

  1. Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ. Phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2400–2405
  2. Ratain MJ. Phase II oncology trials: let’s be positive. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):5661–5662
  3. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(8):711–715
  4. European Medicines Agency. ICH Topic E 4: Dose response information to support drug registration. Canary Wharf, London; 1994.
  5. FDA. Guidance for industry: Exposure-response relationships - Study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications. Rockville, MD; 2003.
  6. FDA. Guidance for industry: Premarketing risk assessment. Rockville, MD; 2005.
  7. Fleming TR, Richardson BA. Some design issues in trials of microbicides for the prevention of HIV infection. J Infect Dis. 2004;190(4):666–674
  8. Peck CC, Rubin DB, Sheiner LB. Hypothesis: a single clinical trial plus causal evidence of effectiveness is sufficient for drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;73(6):481–490
  9. Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95
  10. Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: Application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non – small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(19):1455–1461
  11. Lainer-Carr D, Brahn E. Angiogenesis inhibition as a therapeutic approach for inflammatory synovitis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(8):434–442
  12. FDA. Guidance for industry: Clinical development programs for drugs, devices, and biological products for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Rockville, MD; 1999.
  13. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Eisenhauer EA, Seymour LK. Design and conduct of phase II studies of targeted anticancer therapy: Recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2007;44(1):25–29
  14. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, Lobbezoo MW, Seymour LK, Eisenhauer EA. Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: Recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer. 2007;44(1):19–24
  15. Plummer R, Middleton M, Wilson R, et al. First in human phase I trial of the PARP inhibitor AG-014699 with temozolomide (TMZ) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors (Abstract 3065). Pro ASCO 2005;23(16S).
  16. Littman BH, Williams SA. The ultimate model organism: progress in experimental medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(8):631–638
  17. Gladwell M. Blink. New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2005.
  18. Goulart BH, Roberts TG, Clark JW. Utility and costs of surrogate endpoints (SEs) and biomarkers in phase I oncology trials (Abstract 6012). Pro ASCO 2004; 22(14S).
  19. European Medicines Agency. ICH Topic E 8: General considerations for clinical trials; 1998.
  20. European Medicines Agency. ICH Topic E 9: Statistical principles for clinical trials; 1998.
  21. European Medicines Agency. ICH Topic E 10: Choice of control group in clinical trials; 2001.
  22. Hartford CM, Ratain MJ. Rapamycin: Something old, something new, sometimes borrowed and now renewed. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:381–388
  23. Lazic R, Gabric N. Verteporfin therapy and intravitreal bevacizumab combined and alone in choroidal neovascularization due to age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(6):1179–1185
  24. Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, Nomikos D, Seymour L. Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):5928–5934
  25. Ratain MJ, Karrison TG. Testing the wrong hypothesis in phase II oncology trials: there is a better alternative. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(3):781–782
  26. Vickers AJ, Ballen V, Scher HI. Setting the bar in phase II trials: the use of historical data for determining go/no go decision for definitive phase III testing. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(3):972–976
  27. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS. Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985;69(12):1375–1381
  28. Van Glabbeke M, Steward W, Armand JP. Non-randomised phase II trials of drug combinations: often meaningless, sometimes misleading. Are there alternative strategies?. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(5):635–638
  29. Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B, Hunsberger S, Ivy SP, Smith MA. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(28):7199–7206
  30. Lalonde RL, Kowalski KG, Hutmacher MM, et al. Model-based drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(1):21–32
  31. Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;61(3):275–291
  32. Lockwood P, Ewy W, Hermann D, Holford N. Application of clinical trial simulation to compare proof-of-concept study designs for drugs with a slow onset of effect; an example in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharm Res. 2006;23(9):2050–2059

PII: S0959-8049(07)00737-X

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.09.011

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 44, Issue 1 , Pages 8-11 , January 2008

Article Tools