Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III

PURPOSE

Because the appropriate design and end points for phase II evaluation of targeted anticancer agents are unclear, we undertook a review of recent reports of phase II trials of targeted agents to determine the types of designs used, the planned end points, the outcomes, and the relationship between trial outcomes and regulatory approval.

METHODS

We retrieved reports of single-agent phase II trials in six solid tumors for 19 targeted drugs. For each, we abstracted data regarding planned design and actual results. Response rates were examined for any relationship to eventual success of the agents, as determined by US Food and Drug Administration approval for at least one indication.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine trials were identified. Objective response was the primary or coprimary end point in the majority of trials (61 of 89 trials). Fourteen reports were of randomized studies generally evaluating different doses of agents, not as controlled experiments. Enrichment for target expression was uncommon. Objective responses were seen in 38 trials; in 19 trials, response rates were more than 10%, and in eight, they were more than 20%. Agents with high response rates tended to have high nonprogression rates; renal cell carcinoma was the exception to this. Higher overall response rates were predictive of regulatory approval in the tumor types reviewed (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

In practice, phase II design for targeted agents is similar to that for cytotoxics. Objective response seems to be a useful end point for screening new targeted agents because, in our review, its observation predicted for eventual success. Improvements in design are recommended, as is more frequent inclusion of biological questions as part of phase II trials.

Phase I clinical trial of bortezomib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Bortezomib is the first proteasome inhibitor to show preliminary evidence of activity against solid tumors. Findings from preclinical studies prompted a Phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of bortezomib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with recurring/refractory advanced solid tumors. The effect of gemcitabine on proteasome inhibition by bortezomib in whole blood was also investigated.

METHODS

Bortezomib was administered as an intravenous bolus injection on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11, with gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Groups of > or =3 patients were evaluated at each dose level. Escalating doses of gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) to 1000 mg/m(2) with bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) to 1.5 mg/m(2) were planned.

RESULTS

There were no DLTs in patients receiving bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) to 1000 mg/m(2) in the first 3 dose levels. Dose-limiting nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal obstruction, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 4 of 5 evaluable patients in dose level 4 (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2)), establishing bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) as the MTD. Most common Grade > or =3 toxicities were neutropenia (6 patients), thrombocytopenia (5 patients), gastrointestinal disorders (6 patients), and general disorders (4 patients) such as fatigue. One patient with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma achieved a partial response and 7 achieved stable disease. Inhibition of 20S proteasome activity by bortezomib was unaffected by gemcitabine coadministration.

CONCLUSION

Dosages of bortezomib and gemcitabine suitable for further evaluation of antitumor activity have been established.

Multicenter phase I/II study of cetuximab with paclitaxel and carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors have demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the safety profile of the monoclonal antibody EGFR inhibitor, cetuximab, when added to paclitaxel and carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV NSCLC. Secondary objectives included efficacy and paclitaxel and carboplatin pharmacokinetics during cetuximab treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with tumor evidence of EGFR by immunohistochemistry, performance status of 0 to 2, and measurable disease received paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 with carboplatin area under the curve = 6 on day 1 every 3 weeks. Cetuximab was administered at 400 mg/m2, 1 week before paclitaxel and carboplatin, then weekly at 250 mg/m2. The regimen continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 32 enrolled patients were treated. The most common cetuximab toxicity was rash in 84% of patients (grade 3 in 13%). Pharmacokinetic sampling did not reveal an interaction between carboplatin, paclitaxel, and cetuximab. An objective response was observed in eight patients (26%). With a median follow-up of 19 months, the median time to progression was 5 months, median survival was 11 months, and the 1- and 2-year survival rates were 40% and 16%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of cetuximab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin was safe and well tolerated in this population of stage IV patients. The response rate, time to progression, and median survival were slightly superior to historical controls treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone. A randomized phase II trial has completed accrual.