Sumithra J. Mandrekar

Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Challenges

PURPOSE Biomarkers can add substantial value to current medical practice by providing an integrated approach to prediction using the genetic makeup of the tumor and the genotype of the patient to guide patient-specific treatment selection. We discuss and evaluate various clinical trial designs for the validation of biomarker-guided therapy. METHODS Designs for predictive marker validation are broadly classified as retrospective (ie, using data from previously well-conducted randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) versus prospective (enrichment, unselected, hybrid, or adaptive analysis). We discuss the salient features of each design in the context of real trials. RESULTS Well-designed retrospective analysis from well-conducted prospective RCTs can bring forward effective treatments to marker-defined subgroups of patients in a timely manner (eg, KRAS and colorectal cancer). Enrichment designs are appropriate when preliminary evidence suggest that patients with or without that marker profile do not benefit from the treatments in question; however, this may sometimes leave questions unanswered (eg, trastuzumab and breast cancer). An unselected design is optimal where preliminary evidence regarding treatment benefit and assay reproducibility is uncertain (eg, epidermal growth factor receptor and lung cancer). Hybrid designs are appropriate when preliminary evidence demonstrate the efficacy of certain treatments for a marker-defined subgroup, making it unethical to randomly assign patients with that marker status to other treatments (eg, multigene assay and breast cancer). Adaptive analysis designs allow for prespecified marker-defined subgroup analyses of data from an RCT. CONCLUSION The implementation of these design strategies will lead to a more rapid clinical validation of biomarker-guided therapy.

Pomalidomide (CC4047) Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone As Therapy for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE Thalidomide and lenalidomide are immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) that produce high remission rates in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Pomalidomide is a new IMiD with high in vitro potency. We report, to our knowledge, the first phase II trial of pomalidomide administered in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Pomalidomide was administered orally at a dose of 2 mg daily on days 1 through 28 of a 28-day cycle. Dexamethasone 40 mg daily was administered orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Responses were recorded using the criteria of the International Myeloma Working Group. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled. Thirty-eight patients (63%) achieved confirmed response including complete response in three patients (5%), very good partial response in 17 patients (28%), and partial response in 18 patients (30%). Responses were seen in 40% of lenalidomide-refractory patients, 37% of thalidomide-refractory patients, and 60% of bortezomib-refractory patients. Responses were seen in 74% of patients with high-risk cytogenetic or molecular markers. Toxicity consisted primarily of myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity consisted of anemia (5%), thrombocytopenia (3%), and neutropenia (32%). One patient (1.6%) had a thromboembolic event. The median progression-free survival time was 11.6 months and was not significantly different in patients with high-risk disease compared with patients with standard-risk disease. CONCLUSION The combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone is extremely active in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma, including high response rates in patients refractory to other novel agents.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in myeloma refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide: comparison of 2 dosing strategies in dual-refractory disease

Pomalidomide at doses of 2 or 4 mg/d has demonstrated excellent activity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We opened 2 sequential phase 2 trials using the pomalidomide with weekly dexamethasone (Pom/dex) regimen at differing doses to study the efficacy of this regimen in patients who have failed both lenalidomide and bortezomib. Pomalidomide was given orally 2 or 4 mg daily with dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in each cohort. Confirmed responses in the 2-mg cohort consisted of very good partial response (VGPR) in 5 (14%), partial response (PR) in 4 (11%), minor response (MR) in 8 (23%) for an overall response rate of 49%. In the 4-mg cohort, confirmed responses consisted of complete response (CR) in 1 (3%), VGPR in 3 (9%), PR in 6 (17%), MR in 5 (14%) for an overall response rate of 43%. Overall survival at 6 months is 78% and 67% in the 2- and 4-mg cohort, respectively. Myelosuppression was the most common toxicity. This nonrandomized data suggests no advantage for 4 mg over the 2 mg daily. Pomalidomide overcomes resistance in myeloma refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. This trial is registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00558896.

Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM)

Patients with multiple myeloma progressing on current therapies have limited treatment options. Pomalidomide (CC4047), an immunomodulatory drug, has significant activity in relapsed myeloma and previous studies suggest activity in lenalidomide refractory disease. To better define its efficacy in this group, we treated a cohort of lenalidomide refractory patients. Pomalidomide was given orally (2 mg) daily, continuously in 28-day cycles along with dexamethasone (40 mg) given weekly. Responses were assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group Criteria. Thirty-four patients were enrolled. The best response was very good partial response in 3 (9%), partial response (PR) in 8 (23%), best responses (MR) in 5 (15%), stable disease in 12 (35%) and progressive disease in 6 (18%), for an overall response rate of 47%. Of the 14 patients that were considered high risk, 8 (57%) had responses including 4 PR and 4 MR. The median time to response was 2 months and response duration was 9.1 months, respectively. The median overall survival was 13.9 months. Toxicity was primarily hematologic, with grade 3 or 4 toxicity seen in 18 patients (53%) consisting of anemia (12%), thrombocytopenia (9%) and neutropenia (26%). The combination of pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is highly active and well tolerated in patients with lenalidomide-refractory myeloma.

Midostaurin plus Chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia with a FLT3 Mutation

Background Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and a FLT3 mutation have poor outcomes. We conducted a phase 3 trial to determine whether the addition of midostaurin — an oral multitargeted kinase inhibitor that is active in patients with a FLT3 mutation — to standard chemotherapy would prolong overall survival in this population. Methods We screened 3277 patients, 18 to 59 years of age, who had newly diagnosed AML for FLT3 mutations. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy (induction therapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine and consolidation therapy with high‐dose cytarabine) plus either midostaurin or placebo; those who were in remission after consolidation therapy entered a maintenance phase in which they received either midostaurin or placebo. Randomization was stratified according to subtype of FLT3 mutation: point mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) or internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation with either a high ratio (>0.7) or a low ratio (0.05 to 0.7) of mutant to wild‐type alleles (ITD [high] and ITD [low], respectively). Allogeneic transplantation was allowed. The primary end point was overall survival. Results A total of 717 patients underwent randomization; 360 were assigned to the midostaurin group, and 357 to the placebo group. The FLT3 subtype was ITD (high) in 214 patients, ITD (low) in 341 patients, and TKD in 162 patients. The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to age, race, FLT3 subtype, cytogenetic risk, and blood counts but not with respect to sex (51.7% in the midostaurin group vs. 59.4% in the placebo group were women, P=0.04). Overall survival was significantly longer in the midostaurin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; one‐sided P=0.009), as was event‐free survival (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.78; one‐sided P=0.002). In both the primary analysis and an analysis in which data for patients who underwent transplantation were censored, the benefit of midostaurin was consistent across all FLT3 subtypes. The rate of severe adverse events was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The addition of the multitargeted kinase inhibitor midostaurin to standard chemotherapy significantly prolonged overall and event‐free survival among patients with AML and a FLT3 mutation. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Novartis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00651261.)

iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

Hyperfractionated or Accelerated Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE In lung cancer, randomized trials assessing hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy seem to yield conflicting results regarding the effects on overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Collaborative Group decided to address the role of modified radiotherapy fractionation. MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy. RESULTS In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 10 trials, 2,000 patients), modified fractionation improved OS as compared with conventional schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97; P = .009), resulting in an absolute benefit of 2.5% (8.3% to 10.8%) at 5 years. No evidence of heterogeneity between trials was found. There was no evidence of a benefit on PFS (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03; P = .19). Modified radiotherapy reduced deaths resulting from lung cancer (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = .02), and there was a nonsignificant reduction of non-lung cancer deaths (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.15; P = .33). In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC; two trials, 685 patients), similar results were found: OS, HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02, P = .08; PFS, HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03, P = .11. In both NSCLC and SCLC, the use of modified radiotherapy increased the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.44 in NSCLC and OR = 2.41 in SCLC; P < .001) but did not have an impact on the risk of other acute toxicities. CONCLUSION Patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC derived a significant OS benefit from accelerated or hyperfractionated radiotherapy; a similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for SCLC. As expected, there was increased acute esophageal toxicity.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients Enrolled Onto Phase I Clinical Trials

PURPOSE To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using chi2 analysis. RESULTS One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). CONCLUSION CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.

A Phase I Trial of Twice-Weekly 17-Allylamino-Demethoxy-Geldanamycin in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Purpose: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of 17-allylamino-demethoxy-geldanamycin (17-AAG) administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days and to examine the effect of 17-AAG on the levels of chaperone and client proteins. Experimental Design: A phase I dose escalating trial in patients with advanced solid tumors was done. Toxicity and tumor responses were evaluated by standard criteria. Pharmacokinetics were done and level of target proteins was measured at various points during cycle one. Results: Thirteen patients were enrolled in the study. MTD was defined as 220 mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicities were as follows: dehydration, diarrhea, hyperglycemia, and liver toxicity. At the MTD, the mean clearance of 17-AAG was 18.7 L/h/m2. There was a significant decrease in integrin-linked kinase at 6 hours after infusion on day 1 but not at 25 hours in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Treatment with 17-AAG on day 1 significantly increased pretreatment levels of heat shock protein (HSP) 70 on day 4, which is consistent with the induction of a stress response. In vitro induction of a stress response and up-regulation of HSP70 resulted in an increased resistance to HSP90-targeted therapy in A549 cells. Conclusions: The MTD of 17-AAG on a twice-weekly schedule was 220 mg/m2. Treatment at this dose level resulted in significant changes of target proteins and also resulted in a prolonged increase in HSP70. This raises the possibility that HSP70 induction as part of the stress response may contribute to resistance to 17-AAG.

Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: One Size Does Not Fit All

Traditionally, anatomic staging systems have been used to provide predictions of individual patient outcome and, to a lesser extent, guide the choice of treatment in cancer patients. With targeted therapies, biomarkers have the potential for providing added value through an integrated approach to prediction using the genetic makeup of the tumor and the genotype of the patient for treatment selection and patient management. Specifically, biomarkers can aid in patient stratification (risk assessment), treatment response identification (surrogate markers), or differential diagnosis (identifying individuals who are likely to respond to specific drugs). In this study, we explore two major topics in relation to the design of clinical trials for predictive marker validation. First, we discuss the appropriateness of an enrichment (i.e., targeted) vs. an unselected design through case studies focusing on the clinical question(s) at hand, the strength of the preliminary evidence, and assay reproducibility. Second, we evaluate the efficiency (total number of events and sample size) of two unselected predictive marker designs for validation of a marker under a wide range of clinically relevant scenarios, exploring the impact of the prevalence of the marker and the hazard ratios for the treatment comparisons. The review and evaluation of these designs represents an essential step toward the goal of personalized medicine because we explicitly seek to explore and evaluate the methodology for the clinical validation of biomarker guided therapy.