Design considerations for efficient prostate cancer chemoprevention trials

Veterinary oncology clinical trials: design and implementation

There has been a recent increase in interest among veterinarians and the larger biomedical community in the evaluation of novel cancer therapies in client-owned (pet) animals with spontaneous cancer. This includes novel drugs designed to be veterinary therapeutics, as well as agents for which data generated in animals with tumors may inform human clinical trial design and implementation. An understanding of the process involved in moving a therapeutic agent through the stages of clinical evaluation is critical to the successful implementation of clinical investigations, as well as interpretation of the veterinary oncology literature. This review outlines considerations in the design and conduct of the various phases of oncology clinical trials, along with recent adaptations/modifications of these basic designs that can enhance the generation of timely and meaningful clinical data.

Multitargeted low-dose GLAD combination chemoprevention: a novel and promising approach to combat colon carcinogenesis

Preclinical studies have shown that gefitinib, licofelone, atorvastatin, and α-difluoromethylornithine (GLAD) are promising colon cancer chemopreventive agents. Because low-dose combination regimens can offer potential additive or synergistic effects without toxicity, GLAD combination was tested for toxicity and chemopreventive efficacy for suppression of intestinal tumorigenesis in adenomatous polyposis coli (APC)(Min/+) mice. Six-week-old wild-type and APC(Min/+) mice were fed modified American Institute of Nutrition 76A diets with or without GLAD (25 + 50 + 50 + 500 ppm) for 14 weeks. Dietary GLAD caused no signs of toxicity based on organ pathology and liver enzyme profiles. GLAD feeding strongly inhibited (80-83%, P < .0001) total intestinal tumor multiplicity and size in APC(Min/+) mice (means ± SEM tumors for control vs GLAD were 67.1 ± 5.4 vs. 11.3 ± 1.1 in males and 72.3 ± 8.9 vs 14.5 ± 2.8 in females). Mice fed GLAD had >95% fewer polyps with sizes of >2 mm compared with control mice and showed 75% and 85% inhibition of colonic tumors in males and females, respectively. Molecular analyses of polyps suggested that GLAD exerts efficacy by inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing apoptosis, decreasing β-catenin and caveolin-1 levels, increasing caspase-3 cleavage and p21, and modulating expression profile of inflammatory cytokines. These observations demonstrate that GLAD, a novel cocktail of chemopreventive agents at very low doses, suppresses intestinal tumorigenesis in APC(Min/+) mice with no toxicity. This novel strategy to prevent colorectal cancer is an important step in developing agents with high efficacy without unwanted side effects.

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer: Natural compounds, antiandrogens, and antioxidants - In vivo evidence

Prostate cancer is the leading non-skin malignancy detected in US males and the second cause of death due to male cancer, in the US. Interventions with drugs or diet supplements that slow down the growth and progression of prostate cancer are potentially very effective in reducing the burden of prostate cancer, particularly if these treatments also prevent the de novo development of new prostatic malignancies. Challenges to identify efficacious agents and develop them for chemopreventive application in men at risk for prostate cancer have included uncertainty about which preclinical models have the ability to predict efficacy in men and lack of consensus about which early phase clinical trial designs are the most appropriate and cost-effective to test promising agents. Efficacy studies in animal models have identified several agents with potential chemopreventive activity against prostate cancer, but few of these findings have been translated into clinical trials. This article identifies some of the major issues associated with prostate cancer chemoprevention research and summarizes the most significant current results from animal efficacy studies and human clinical prevention trials. This summary focuses on: (1) Naturally occurring agents and compounds derived from such agents, including green tea and its constituents, silibinin and milk thistle, and genistein and soy, (2) chemoprevention drugs including agents interfering with androgen action, and (3) antioxidants such as selenium, vitamin E, and lycopene. The general lack of activity of antioxidants is discussed, followed by considerations about translation of preclinical chemoprevention efficacy data, focusing on dose, form, bioavailability, and timing of administration of the agent, as well as discussion of study design of clinical trials and the predictive ability of preclinical models.

A nutrient approach to prostate cancer prevention: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) randomized 35,533 healthy men, >55 yr old (>50 yr if African American), with normal digital rectal exams and prostate specific antigens <4 ng/ml to 1) 200 μg/day l-selenomethionine, 2) 400 IU/day all-rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), 3) both supplements, or 4) placebo for 7 to 12 yr. The hypotheses underlying SELECT, that selenium and vitamin E individually and together decrease prostate cancer incidence, derived from epidemiologic and laboratory evidence and significant secondary endpoints in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (selenium) and Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (vitamin E) trials. In SELECT, prostate cancer incidence did not differ among the 4 arms: hazard ratios [99% confidence intervals (CIs)] for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI = 0.95-1.35, P = 0.06; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI = 0.87-1.24, P = 0.62; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI = 0.88-1.25, P = 0.52; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs. 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. Statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer with vitamin E alone [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, P = 0.06) and newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes mellitus with selenium alone (RR = 1.07, P = 0.16) were observed. SELECT data show that neither selenium nor vitamin E, alone or together, in the doses and formulations used, prevented prostate cancer in this heterogeneous population of healthy men.

Biomarkers for Parkinson's [corrected] disease: tools to assess Parkinson's disease onset and progression

Reliable and well-validated biomarkers for PD to identify individuals "at risk" before motor symptoms, accurately diagnose individuals at the threshold of clinical PD, and monitor PD progression throughout its course would dramatically accelerate research into both PD cause and therapeutics. Biomarkers offer the potential to provide a window onto disease mechanism, potentially generating therapeutic targets for disease. In particular, biomarkers enable investigation of the premotor period of PD before typical symptoms are manifest, but while degeneration has already begun. Given the multiple genetic causes for PD already identified, the marked variability in the loss of dopaminergic markers measured by imaging at motor symptom onset and the clear heterogeneity of clinical symptoms in PD onset and clinical progression, it is likely many biomarkers with a focus ranging from clinical symptoms to PD pathobiology to molecular genetic mechanisms will be necessary to fully map PD risk and progression. Biomarkers are also critical in new drug development for PD, both in early validation studies to assess drug dosing and to determine drug penetrance into the brain, and in later efficacy studies to complement PD clinical outcomes. During the past two decades, much progress has been made in identifying and assessing PD biomarkers, but as yet, no fully validated biomarker for PD is currently available. Nonetheless, there is increasing evidence that molecular genetics, focused -omic (proteomic, metabolomic, and transcriptomic) assessment of blood and cerebrospinal fluid, and advanced in vivo brain imaging will provide critical clues to assist in the diagnosis and medical management of PD patients.

Overcoming challenges in designing and implementing a phase II randomized controlled trial using a presurgical model to test a dietary intervention in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The time between the diagnosis of cancer and a planned definitive surgical procedure offers a strong and direct approach for assessing the impact of interventions (including lifestyle interventions) on the biology of the target tissue and the tumor. Despite the many strengths of presurgical models, there are practical issues and challenges that arise when using this approach.

PURPOSE/METHODS

We recently completed an NIH-funded phase II trial that utilized a presurgical model in testing the comparative effects of flaxseed supplementation and/or dietary fat restriction on the biology and biomarkers associated with prostatic carcinoma. Herein, we report the rationale for our original design, discuss modifications in strategy, and relay experiences in implementing this trial related to the following topics: (1) subject accrual; (2) subject retention; (3) intervention delivery; and (4) retrieval and completion rates regarding the collection of paraffin-embedded and fresh frozen prostate tissue, blood, urine, ejaculate, anthropometric measures and survey data.

RESULTS

This trial achieved its accrual target, i.e., a racially-representative (70% white, 30% minority) sample of 161 participants, low rates of attrition (7%); and collection rates that exceeded 90% for almost all biospecimens and survey data. While the experience gained from pilot studies was invaluable in designing this trial, the complexity introduced by the collection of several biospecimens, inclusion of a team of pathologists (to provide validated readings), and shifts in practice patterns related to prostatectomy, made it necessary to revise our protocol; lessons from our experiences are offered within this article.

CONCLUSIONS

While our experience specifically relates to the implementation of a presurgical model-based trial in prostate cancer aimed at testing flaxseed-supplemented and fat-restricted diets, many of the lessons learned have broad application to trials that utilize a presurgical model or dietary modification within various cancer populations.

North Central Cancer Treatment Group--achievements and perspectives

The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) was founded in 1977 as a regional cooperative group to allow cancer patients in the upper Midwest of the United States to gain access to clinical trials in oncology by establishing a network of community oncology practices with one academic research base, the Mayo Clinic. Since then, the NCCTG has grown into an international cooperative group with 43 members in 33 US states and Canada. This article details 30 years of achievements of the NCCTG, including important scientific contributions from disease-specific and treatment modality committees, the cancer control program, patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life research, and biostatisticians that support the NCCTG's specific aims: to improve the duration and quality of life of cancer patients, to enhance our understanding of the biological consequences of cancer and its treatment, and to improve methods for clinical trial conduct.

Randomized Phase II Designs in Cancer Clinical Trials: Current Status and Future Directions

Purpose

Randomized phase II (RPh2) designs are popular in cancer clinical trials because of the smaller sample size requirements when multiple treatments are being evaluated. We reviewed the use of RPh2 designs and give comments on future directions.

Design

The trial design, statistical properties, conduct, data analysis, results, and reporting were examined in RPh2 trials reported from 1986 to 2002.

Results

A statistical design was reported in only 46% of the 266 cancer trials, and approximately half of those provided inadequate information. Most studies applied randomization to achieve patient comparability, while embedding a one-sample phase II design within each treatment arm. Seventy-five percent of the trials’ accruals were within ± 10% of their targets. The average accrual rate was 3.3 patients per month. Planned interim analyses were reported in 27% of the trials, and 56% of the trials were stopped early; 69%, 13%, 13%, and 4% of the trial discontinuations were because of lack of efficacy, efficacy, toxicity, and slow accrual, respectively. Thirty-nine trials (14%) recommended or started phase III evaluations, with four positive reports in six phase III studies identified.

Conclusion

There is a trend of increasing use of RPh2 designs in cancer research. Continued improvement in study design, conduct, analysis, and reporting is required to enhance the quality of RPh2 designs. The accrual rate and success rate of the trials remain low, and therefore, futility stopping rules to terminate ineffective treatment arm(s) should be implemented more frequently. More innovative, flexible RPh2 designs are needed to facilitate the development of effective cancer treatments.

Designing a Randomized Phase I/II Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention Trial Using 1??-Hydroxy-24-Ethyl-Cholecalciferol, an Analogue of Vitamin D3

Prostate cancer continues to be a significant source of morbidity and mortality among older men. One possible means of reducing its impact on overall health and vitality is via cancer chemoprevention, both in the population that is unaffected but at some risk and in those who have undergone some form of curative therapy after the onset of the disease. Chemoprevention holds significant promise, but large phase III clinical trials evaluating chemopreventive agents in prostate cancer can require vast numbers of enrollees and require the commitment of significant financial resources and time before any therapeutic benefit may become apparent. One technique to shorten the time required for chemoprevention clinical trials is to use surrogate endpoint biomarkers in place of the currently used actual endpoints of cancer incidence or survival. The validation of such surrogate endpoint biomarkers will require small, well-designed phase I and/or II trials to accumulate data on the modulation of the surrogate biomarkers and the endpoints of cancer incidence or survival by the chemopreventive agent. Careful statistical correlation and clinical validation of the data will then allow us to justify the use such surrogates in place of the actual endpoint in large, randomized trials, potentially shortening trial duration, improving financial efficiency, and accelerating approval of the chemopreventive agent. To that end, we first review the theoretical construct of cancer chemoprevention trials with particular reference to prostate cancer. We thereafter describe the design of a small, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase I/II clinical trial of an analogue of vitamin D, vitamin D5, which we believe could serve as a model for data accumulation on surrogate biomarkers and correlation with other clinical endpoints.

Prostate cancer and polymorphism D85Y in gene for dihydrotestosterone degrading enzyme UGT2B15: Frequency of DD homozygotes increases with Gleason Score

BACKGROUND

Although, a functional rationale for influence of polymorphism D85Y in gene UGT2B15 on prostate cancer (PCa) exists (different V(max) of enzyme), conflicting results have been reported.

METHODS

DNA from 178 controls and 206 PCa patients with known Gleason score were genotyped using a newly developed RFLP assay, which allowed the detection of both alleles in an individual after single PCR amplification.

CONTROLS

16% DD, 52% DY; PCa patients: 23% DD, 49% DY. Subgroups of PCa: well differentiated: 11% DD, 37% DY; moderately differentiated: 22% DD, 50% DY; poorly differentiated: 34% DD, 50% DY. Correlation was confirmed between Gleason score and number of D alleles (P = 0.018) and persisted after age adjustment. When comparing controls to patients with a Gleason score of 7 or more, difference for the frequency of homozygosity DD was significant between the groups (P = 0.032, OR = 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Polymorphism D85Y in gene UGT2B15 correlates with differentiation of PCa.

Evolving strategies for prostate cancer chemoprevention trials

Prostate cancer chemoprevention (CP) can be defined as the use of natural and synthetic agents that inhibit, reverse or regress precancer and delay progression to invasive cancer. During the past two decades several CP strategies have evolved. The first generation of CP trials tested the efficacy of antioxidants and vitamins including B-carotene, vitamin A, retinol, 13 cis retinoic acid, vitamins E, C and selenium. Although these trials were disappointing, provocative hypotheses were generated for selenium and vitamin E that set the stage for future prostate trials. In the 1990s, the NCI launched a second generation of large CP trials aimed at breast and prostate cancer. One of these trials is the PCPT, testing the efficacy of a 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor-finasteride to prevent prostate cancer in 18,000 men. Although PCPT is still in progress, the NCI recently launched a second large primary prostate CP trial called SELECT, testing the efficacy of selenium and vitamin E in 32,400 men. The Prostate Cancer Progress Report to the Director of NCI in 1998 challenged the research community to design more efficient CP trials for prostate cancer. In response, the NCI has evolved a third generation of CP trials. This involves pharmacologically driven translational science research including agents and their targets, biomarker endpoints, suitable clinical models for testing agents and efficient trial designs employing high risk cohorts and surrogate endpoints. In summary, a dual strategy for CP is being developed which includes public health measures and a medical intervention approach.

Hormonal therapy: historical perspective to future directions

Prostate cancer is second only to lung and bronchial cancer as the leading cause of cancer death in men. Local treatment, surgery, and radiation remain the mainstay of treatment for early-stage disease. However, in locally advanced and advanced disease, there has been considerable evolution in the hormonal therapies. Suppression of testosterone production, the primary goal of hormonal therapy, may be accomplished with the use of estrogens, antiandrogens, and agonists and antagonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). This article provides an overview of the primary hormonal therapies currently used in prostate cancer. Estrogen therapy was initially the predominant medical form of hormone manipulation and an alternative to orchiectomy. However, serious thrombogenic side effects were associated with its use, which decreased after the introduction of LHRH agonists in the 1980s. Many of the side effects occurring with oral estrogen therapy may be modulated by parenteral administration, and thus estrogen use is being revisited. LHRH agonists effectively reduce testosterone levels to castration levels (<50 ng/mL) within 2 to 4 weeks, although their use is associated with tumor flare. Antiandrogen monotherapy may offer quality-of-life benefits over treatment with androgen deprivation. The additive benefit of combined androgen blockade is yet to be determined. Recent evidence suggests that hormonal therapy may offer a survival benefit when initiated in earlier stages of prostate cancer. Future investigations will be directed to determining the most efficacious regimens.

Executive Summary of the National Cancer Institute Workshop: Highlights and recommendations

Prostate cancer chemoprevention represents a relatively new and promising strategy for reducing the immense public health burden of this devastating cancer of men in the United States and Western societies. Chemoprevention is defined as the administration of agents (drugs, biologics, and natural products) that modulate (inhibit) one or more steps in the multistage carcinogenesis process culminating in invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In 2000, there were an estimated 170,000 new cases of prostate cancer and 31,000 deaths in the United States. During the past decade, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized the chemoprevention research program and began testing the first generation of promising agents (eg, 4-(hydroxy)-fenretinide [4-HPR], difluoromethylornithine [DFMO], antiandrogens) in high-risk cohorts and launched the first-large scale US phase 3 primary prevention trial, known as Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT-1), in 18,000 average-risk men (age more than 55 years and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] less than 3 ng/mL) treated for 7 years with finasteride or placebo. In the summer of 1998, the NCI Prostate Cancer Progress Review Group (PRG) Report to the director of NCI was published in response to the leadership of the prostate cancer advocacy community in conjunction with Congress. To further elucidate and address critical issues identified in this report and to develop a research agenda for the newly created Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the Division of Cancer Prevention at NCI, the NCI organized the workshop "New Clinical Trial Strategies for Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention." The major objectives were to promote understanding and cooperation among the NCI, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academia, pharmaceutical industry, and the public regarding new opportunities for clinical prevention trials for prostate cancer. The workshop was divided into three concurrent breakout panels and a fourth joint integrative panel. The workshop addressed multiple key areas identified in the PRG report in the following panels: (1) Molecular Targets and Promising Agents in Clinical Development; (2) Intermediate Endpoint Biomarkers for Prevention Trials; (3) High-Risk Study Populations for Prevention Trials, and (4) Preventive Clinical Trial Designs and Regulatory Issues. Expert panelists were drawn from leading academic, pharmaceutical, and government scientists in basic research and clinical investigation. Key pharmaceutical, biotechnology, academic, and National Institutes of Health scientists presented overviews of their new agents and products in clinical development (representing the next generation of promising agents). Senior FDA physicians from the Center for Drugs and Center for Biologics presented on current standards for new drug and biologic approval for chemoprevention efficacy. Some of the key topics included recent advances in the state of knowledge of promising agents in the clinic based on molecular targets as well as bottlenecks in drug development for pharmaceutical sponsors; strategic modulable biomarkers that can serve as primary endpoints in phase 1/2 trials to assess preventive efficacy; high-risk cohorts with precancer (high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) and representative clinical trial designs that are ready for immediate translation into efficient prevention trials, such as Bayesian sequential monitoring for early assessment of biologic activity and factorial designs for assessment of multiagent combinations. Finally, each expert panel generated recommendations for areas of future research emphasizing opportunities and infrastructure needs.