Estimation of renal cell carcinoma treatment effects from disease progression modeling

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 345-351

  Maitland, M L ^a   Wu, K ^a   Sharma, M R ^a   Jin, Y ^b,d   Kang, S P ^a,e   Stadler, W M ^a   Karrison, T G ^a   Ratain, M J ^a   Bies, R R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PFIZER INC   (United States)

^e MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PAZOPANIB; PLACEBO; SORAFENIB;

ANTIANGIOGENIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; BOOTSTRAPPING; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER SIZE; DRUG RESPONSE; HUMAN; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; DISEASE PROGRESSION; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NIACINAMIDE; PHENYLUREA COMPOUNDS;

EID: 84875412326     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2012.263     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. DiMasi, J.A. & Grabowski, H.G. Economics of new oncology drug development. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 209-216 (2007).
2. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004).
3. Roberts, T.G. Jr, Lynch, T.J. Jr & Chabner, B.A. The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the "go or no go" decision. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 3683-3695 (2003).
4. Adjei, A.A., Christian, M. & Ivy, P. Novel designs and end points for phase II clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 1866-1872 (2009).
5. Brown, S.R. et al. Designing phase II trials in cancer: a systematic review and guidance. Br. J. Cancer 105, 194-199 (2011).
6. Gan, H.K., Grothey, A., Pond, G.R., Moore, M.J., Siu, L.L. & Sargent, D. Randomized phase II trials: inevitable or inadvisable? J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 2641-2647 (2010).
7. Mandrekar, S.J. & Sargent, D.J. Randomized phase II trials: time for a new era in clinical trial design. J. Thorac. Oncol. 5, 932-934 (2010).
8. Rubinstein, L., Crowley, J., Ivy, P., Leblanc, M. & Sargent, D. Randomized phase II designs. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 1883-1890 (2009).
9. Rubinstein, L., Leblanc, M. & Smith, M.A. More randomization in phase II trials: necessary but not sufficient. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 103, 1075-1077 (2011).
10. Seymour, L. et al. The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 1764-1769 (2010).
11. Sharma, M.R., Maitland, M.L. & Ratain, M.J. Other paradigms: better treatments are identified by better trials: the value of randomized phase II studies. Cancer J. 15, 426-430 (2009).
12. Sharma, M.R., Stadler, W.M. & Ratain, M.J. Randomized phase II trials: a longterm investment with promising returns. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 103, 1093-1100 (2011).
13. Moertel, C.G. & Hanley, J.A. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38, 388-394 (1976).
14. Miller, A.B., Hoogstraten, B., Staquet, M. & Winkler, A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47, 207-214 (1981).
15. Therasse, P. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92, 205-216 (2000).
16. Eisenhauer, E.A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228-247 (2009).
17. Maitland, M.L., Hudoba, C., Snider, K.L. & Ratain, M.J. Analysis of the yield of phase II combination therapy trials in medical oncology. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 5296-5302 (2010).
18. Rini, B.I., Campbell, S.C. & Escudier, B. Renal cell carcinoma. Lancet 373, 1119-1132 (2009).
19. Rini, B.I. et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 378, 1931-1939 (2011).
20. Wang, Y. et al. Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 167-174 (2009).
21. Claret, L. et al. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4103-4108 (2009).
22. Tham, L.S. et al. A pharmacodynamic model for the time course of tumor shrinkage by gemcitabine + carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 4213-4218 (2008).
23. Escudier, B. et al.; TARGET Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renalcell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 125-134 (2007).
24. Sternberg, C.N. et al. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1061-1068 (2010).
25. Louis, T.A. & Shen, W. Innovations in bayes and empirical bayes methods: estimating parameters, populations and ranks. Stat. Med. 18, 2493-2505 (1999).
26. Stein, W.D., Yang, J., Bates, S.E. & Fojo, T. Bevacizumab reduces the growth rate constants of renal carcinomas: a novel algorithm suggests early discontinuation of bevacizumab resulted in a lack of survival advantage. Oncologist 13, 1055-1062 (2008).
27. Houk, B.E. Predictive capability of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overall survival model in non-small cell lung cancer in two phase II trials utilizing different anti-cancer agents. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 85 (suppl. 1), S58 (2009).
28. Vogelzang, N.J. Treatment options in metastatic renal carcinoma: an embarrassment of riches. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 1-3 (2006).
29. Maitland, M.L. & Schilsky, R.L. Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 61, 365-381 (2011).
30. Sharma, M.R. et al. Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 2309-2315 (2012).
31. Stein, W.D. et al. Analyzing the pivotal trial that compared sunitinib and IFN-a in renal cell carcinoma, using a method that assesses tumor regression and growth. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 2374-2381 (2012).
32. Claret, L., Lu, J.F., Bruno, R., Hsu, C.P., Hei, Y.J. & Sun, Y.N. Simulations using a drugdisease modeling framework and phase II data predict phase III survival outcome in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 631-634 (2012).
33. Heng, D.Y. et al. Progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with contemporary targeted therapy. Cancer 117, 2637-2642 (2011).
34. Beal, S.L., Sheiner, L.B. & Boeckmann, A.J. NONMEM Users Guides (Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD, 2008).
35. Bergstrand, M., Hooker, A.C., Wallin, J.E. & Karlsson, M.O. Prediction-corrected visual predictive checks for diagnosing nonlinear mixed-effects models. AAPS J. 13, 143-151 (2011).
36. Post, T.M., Freijer, J.I., Ploeger, B.A. & Danhof, M. Extensions to the visual predictive check to facilitate model performance evaluation. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 35, 185-202 (2008).
37. Yano, Y., Beal, S.L. & Sheiner, L.B. Evaluating pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic models using the posterior predictive check. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 28, 171-192 (2001).