Larry Rubinstein

New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors

Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.

Phase 0 Clinical Trial of the Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor ABT-888 in Patients With Advanced Malignancies

PURPOSE We conducted the first phase 0 clinical trial in oncology of a therapeutic agent under the Exploratory Investigational New Drug Guidance of the US Food and Drug Administration. It was a first-in-human study of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor ABT-888 in patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS ABT-888 was administered as a single oral dose of 10, 25, or 50 mg to determine the dose range and time course over which ABT-888 inhibits PARP activity in tumor samples and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and to evaluate ABT-888 pharmacokinetics. Blood samples and tumor biopsies were obtained pre- and postdrug administration for evaluation of PARP activity and pharmacokinetics. A novel statistical approach was developed and utilized to study pharmacodynamic modulation as the primary end point for trials of limited sample size. RESULTS Thirteen patients with advanced malignancies received the study drug; nine patients underwent paired tumor biopsies. ABT-888 demonstrated good oral bioavailability and was well tolerated. Statistically significant inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) levels was observed in tumor biopsies and peripheral blood mononuclear cells at the 25-mg and 50-mg dose levels. CONCLUSION Within 5 months of study activation, we obtained pivotal biochemical and pharmacokinetic data that have guided the design of subsequent phase I trials of ABT-888 in combination with DNA-damaging agents. In addition to accelerating the development of ABT-888, the rapid conclusion of this trial demonstrates the feasibility of conducting proof-of-principle phase 0 trials as part of an alternative paradigm for early drug development in oncology.

Phase I Study of PARP Inhibitor ABT-888 in Combination with Topotecan in Adults with Refractory Solid Tumors and Lymphomas

A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor, in combination with topotecan, a topoisomerase I-targeted agent, was carried out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the combination in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Varying schedules and doses of intravenous topotecan in combination with ABT-888 (10 mg) administered orally twice a day (BID) were evaluated. Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics were assessed and levels of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) and the DNA damage marker γH2AX were measured in tumor and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Significant myelosuppression limited the ability to coadminister ABT-888 with standard doses of topotecan, necessitating dose reductions. Preclinical studies using athymic mice carrying human tumor xenografts also informed schedule changes. The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m²/d and ABT-888 10 mg BID on days one to five of 21-day cycles. Topotecan did not alter the pharmacokinetics of ABT-888. A more than 75% reduction in PAR levels was observed in 3 paired tumor biopsy samples; a greater than 50% reduction was observed in PBMCs from 19 of 23 patients with measurable levels. Increases in γH2AX response in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and PBMCs were observed in patients receiving ABT-888 with topotecan. We show a mechanistic interaction of a PARP inhibitor, ABT-888, with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in PBMCs, tumor, and CTCs. Results of this trial reveal that PARP inhibition can modulate the capacity to repair topoisomerase I-mediated DNA damage in the clinic.

A Phase I Study of Veliparib in Combination with Metronomic Cyclophosphamide in Adults with Refractory Solid Tumors and Lymphomas

Purpose: Oral administration of the alkylating agent cyclophosphamide at low doses, metronomic dosing, is well tolerated, with efficacy in multiple tumor types. PARP inhibition potentiates effects of cyclophosphamide in preclinical models. We conducted a phase I trial of the PARP inhibitor veliparib and metronomic cyclophosphamide in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphoid malignancies. Experimental Design: Objectives were to establish the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination; characterize veliparib pharmacokinetics (PK); measure poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR), a product of PARP, in tumor biopsies and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC); and measure the DNA-damage marker γH2AX in PBMCs and circulating tumor cells (CTC). Cyclophosphamide was administered once daily in 21-day cycles in combination with veliparib administered once daily for 7, 14, or 21 days. Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled. The study treatment was well tolerated, and the MTD was established as veliparib 60 mg with cyclophosphamide 50 mg given once daily. Seven patients had partial responses; an additional six patients had disease stabilization for at least six cycles. PAR was significantly decreased in PBMCs (by at least 50%) and tumor biopsies (by at least 80%) across dose levels (DL); γH2AX levels were increased in CTCs from seven of nine patients evaluated after drug administration. Conclusions: The combination of veliparib with metronomic cyclophosphamide is well tolerated and shows promising activity in a subset of patients with BRCA mutations. A phase II trial of the combination compared with single-agent cyclophosphamide is ongoing in BRCA-positive ovarian cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and low-grade lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res; 18(6); 1726–34. ©2012 AACR.

Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.

BACKGROUND After the initial RECIST 1.0 were published in 2000, the criteria were widely implemented in the scientific oncology community. Since then, the RECIST working group has identified several issues to examine further. Two key issues that required careful, data-based assessment were the maximum number of lesions that should be assessed at each evaluation and the added value of requiring confirmation of response. METHODS To address these questions, data were obtained from 16 clinical trials in metastatic cancer, with patients enrolled between 1993 and 2005. A total of 6512 patients were included in the primary analysis dataset, accounting for over 18,000 potential target lesions. Nine percent of the included patients (n=585) had six or more reported target lesions. The response and progression outcomes in the database were calculated using an adjusted RECIST methodology with a maximum of 5 (or 3) target lesions with/without confirmation and this was compared to the original RECIST version 1.0 which required up to 10 target lesions plus confirmation of response. RESULTS Assessment of 5 lesions per patient led to a difference in best overall response assignment for an estimated 209 (3.2%) patients as compared to RECIST version 1.0. However, these changes did not affect the overall response rate. Progression-free survival was only minimally affected by measuring fewer lesions. In contrast, removing the requirement for response confirmation led to a significant increase in the numbers of patients classified as responders, resulting in a relative increase of approximately 19% in response rate. An algorithm using a maximum of three target lesions shows high concordance with the 10 lesions requirement in terms of response and TTP assignment. Concern that appropriate assessment of disease within an organ requires two lesions to be followed per organ suggests the approach of following two target lesions per organ, up to a maximum of five target lesions overall. Both strategies seem reasonable based on the data warehouse. The requirement of response confirmation in trials where this is a primary end-point is recommended to be maintained as its removal would substantially increase reported response rates.

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

The optimal design of phase II studies continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, especially studies of newer molecularly targeted agents. The observations that many new therapeutics “fail” in definitive phase III studies, coupled with the numbers of new agents to be tested as well as the increasing costs and complexity of clinical trials, further emphasize the critical importance of robust and efficient phase II design. The Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) has published a series of discussion papers on phase II trial design in Clinical Cancer Research. The IDSC has developed formal recommendations about aspects of phase II trial design that are the subject of frequent debate, such as endpoints (response versus progression-free survival), randomization (single-arm designs versus randomization), inclusion of biomarkers, biomarker-based patient enrichment strategies, and statistical design (e.g., two-stage designs versus multiple-group adaptive designs). Although these recommendations in general encourage the use of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, randomization, inclusion of biomarkers, and incorporation of newer designs, we acknowledge that objective response as an endpoint and single-arm designs remain relevant in certain situations. The design of any clinical trial should always be carefully evaluated and justified based on characteristic specific to the situation. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1764–9

Randomized Phase II Designs

As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.

Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points

The success or failure of a clinical trial, of any phase, depends critically on the choice of an appropriate primary end-point. In the setting of phases II and III cancer clinical trials, imaging end-points have historically, and continue presently to play a major role in determining therapeutic efficacy. The primary goal of this paper is to discuss the validation of imaging-based markers as end-points for phase II clinical trials of cancer therapy. Specifically, we outline the issues that must be considered, and the criteria that would need to be satisfied, for an imaging end-point to supplement or potentially replace RECIST- defined tumour status as a phase II clinical trial end-point. The key criteria proposed to judge the utility of a new end-point primarily relate to its ability to accurately and reproducibly predict the eventual phase III end-point for treatment effect, which is usually assessed by a difference between two arms on progression free or overall survival, both at the patient and more importantly at the trial level. As will be demonstrated, the level of evidence required to formally and fully validate a new imaging marker as an appropriate end-point for phase II trials is substantial. In many cases, this level of evidence will only become available by conducting a series of coordinated prospectively designed multicentre clinical trials culminating in a formal meta-analysis. We also include a discussion of situations where flexibility may be required, relative to the ideal rigorous evaluation, to accommodate inevitable real-world feasibility constraints.

Approaches to Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design Focused on Safety, Efficiency, and Selected Patient Populations: A Report from the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee

The goals and objectives of phase 1 clinical trials are changing to include further evaluation of endpoints such as molecular targeted effects, in addition to dose-toxicity profile of the investigational agent. Because of these changes in focus, the National Cancer Institute and Investigational Drug Steering Committees Task Force on Clinical Trial Design met to evaluate the most efficient ways to design and implement early clinical trials with novel therapeutics. Clinical approaches discussed included the conventional 3 + 3 cohort expansion phase 1 design, multi-institutional phase 1 studies, accelerated titration designs, continual reassessment methods, the study of specific target patient populations, and phase 0 studies. Each of these approaches uniquely contributes to some aspect of the phase 1 study, with all focused on dose and schedule determination, patient safety, and limited patient exposure to ineffective doses of investigational agent. The benefit of labor-intensive generation of preliminary biomarker evidence of target inhibition, as well as the value of molecular profiling of the study population, is considered. New drug development is expensive and the failure rate remains high. By identifying patient populations expected to respond to the study agent and tailoring the treatment with a novel drug, investigators will be one step closer to personalizing cancer treatment. The “fail early and fast” approach is acceptable if the appropriate patient population is evaluated in the phase 1 trial. The approaches outlined in this overview address the merits, advantages, disadvantages, and obstacles encountered during first in human studies. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1726–36

Designing Phase 0 Cancer Clinical Trials

Phase 0 trials are designed primarily to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic properties of selected investigational agents before initiating more traditional phase I testing. One of the major objectives of phase 0 trials is to interrogate and refine a target or biomarker assay for drug effect in human samples implementing procedures developed and validated in preclinical models. Thus, close collaboration between laboratory scientists and clinical investigators is essential to the design and conduct of phase 0 trials. Given the relatively small number of patients and tissue samples, showing a significant drug effect in phase 0 trials requires precise and reproducible assay procedures and innovative statistical methodology. Furthermore, phase 0 trials involving limited exposure of a study agent administered at low doses and/or for a short period allow them to be initiated under the Food and Drug Administration exploratory investigational new drug guidance with less preclinical toxicity data than usually required for traditional first-in-human studies. Because of the very limited drug exposure, phase 0 trials offer no chance of therapeutic benefit, which can impede patient enrollment, particularly if invasive tumor biopsies are required. The challenges to accrual are not insurmountable, however, and well-designed and executed phase 0 trials are feasible and have great potential for improving the efficiency and success of subsequent trials, particularly those evaluating molecularly targeted agents.