Effective Incorporation of biomarkers into phase II trials

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1898-1905

  McShane, Lisa M ^a   Hunsberger, Sally ^a   Adjei, Alex A ^b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CA 125 ANTIGEN; CETUXIMAB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; IMATINIB; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; SORAFENIB; TRASTUZUMAB; VASCULOTROPIN; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESPONSE; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 63449108223     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2033     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adjei AA, Christian M, Ivy P. Novel designs and end-points for phase II clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15:1866-72.
2. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69: 89-95.
3. Shankar LK,Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Benjamin R, Schuetze S, Fitzgerald TJ. Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15. In press.
4. Park JW, Kerbel RS, Kelloff GJ, et al. Rationale for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in mechanism driven oncology drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3885-96.
5. Clark GM, Zborowski DM, Culbertson JL, et al. Clinical utility of epidermal growth factor receptor expression for selecting patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer for treatment with erlotinib. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:837-46.
6. Betensky RA, Louis DN, Cairncross JG. Influence of unrecognized molecular heterogeneity on randomized clinical trials. JClin Oncol 2002;20:2495-9.
7. Park JW, Stagg R, Lewis GD, et al. Anti-p185HER2 monoclonal antibodies: biological properties and potential for immunotherapy. In: Dickson RB, Lippman ME, editors. Genes, oncogenes, andhormones: advances in cellular and molecular biology of breast cancer. Boston: Kluwer;1992. p.193-211.
8. Lewis GD, FigariI, Fendly B, et al. Differential responsesof human tumor cell lines to antip185HER2 monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1993;37:255-7.
9. Baselga J, Tripathy D, Mendelsohn J, et al: Phase II study of weekly intravenous recombinant humanized anti-p185HER2 monoclonal antibody in patients with HER2/neu overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. JClinOncol1996;14:737-44.
10. Cobleigh MA,Vogel CL,Tripathy D, et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2639-48.
11. Smith IE. Efficacyand safety of Herceptin in women with metastatic breast cancer: results from pivotal clinical studies. Anticancer Drugs 2001;12:S3-10.
12. Paik S, Kim C,WolmarkN. HER2 status and benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1409-11.
13. SpanoJP, Milano G,Vignot S, et al. Potential predictive markers of response to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008; 66:21 -30.
14. Wilhelm SM, Carter C,Tang L, et al. BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral anti-tumor activity and targets the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angio-genesis. Cancer Res 2004;64: 7099-109.
15. Ratain MJ,Glassman RH. Biomarkersin phaseI oncology trials: signal, noise, or expensive distraction? Commentary on Goulart et al. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:6545-8.
16. Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med 2005;24:163-82.
17. Buyse M, Molensberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000;1:49-67.
18. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med1997; 16:1965-82.
19. Parmar MKB,Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998;17: 2815-34.
20. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8: 431 -40.
21. Rubinstein L, CrowleyJ, Ivy P, LeBlanc M, Sargent D. Randomized phase II designs. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15. In press.
22. Dhani N,Tu D,Sargent DJ,Seymour L, Moore MJ. Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15. In press.
23. Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W, et al. Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3461 -7.
24. Ramiah R, George DJ, Armstrong AJ. Clinical end-points for drug development in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2008;18:303-8.
25. Thompson IM,Tangen CM, Kristal AR. Prostate-specific antigen: a misused and maligned prostate cancer biomarker. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;100: 1487-8.
26. Scher HI, Halabi S, TannockI, et al. Design and end-points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:1148-59.
27. Bridgewater JA, Nelstrop AE, Rustin GJ, et al. Comparison of standard and CA-125 response criteria in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with platinum or paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:501 -8.
28. Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, Bentzen SM, Bond SJ, McClean P. Selection of active drugs for ovarian cancer based on CA-125 and standard response rates in phaseII trials. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1733-9.
29. Stevenson A, Gore M. Specific keynote: clinical trial design problems in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;88:S117-21.
30. Rustin GJS, Bast RC, Jr., Kelloff GJ, et al. Use of CA-125 in clinical trial evaluation of new therapeutic drugs for ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10: 3919-26.
31. De Primo SE, Bello C. Surrogate biomarkers in evaluating response to anti-angiogenic agents: focus on sunitinib. Ann Oncol 2007;18:S11 -9.
32. Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B, et al. Designissues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7199-206.
33. Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G, et al. 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 2008;44:25-9.
34. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control ClinTrials1989;10:1 -10.
35. Jones CL, Holmgren E. An adaptive Simon two-stage design for phase 2 studies of targeted therapies. Contemp Clin Trials 2007;28:654-61.
36. Pusztai L, Anderson K, Hess KR. Pharmacogenomic predictor discovery in phase II clinical trials for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:6080-6.
37. Leyland-Jones BR, Ambrosone CB, Bartlett J, et al. Recommendations for collection and handling of specimens from group breast cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5638-44.