Wendy R. Parulekar

Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS A total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Meta-Analysis of Phase II Cooperative Group Trials in Metastatic Stage IV Melanoma to Determine Progression-Free and Overall Survival Benchmarks for Future Phase II Trials

PURPOSE Objective tumor response rates observed in phase II trials for metastatic melanoma have historically not provided a reliable indicator of meaningful survival benefits. To facilitate using overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint for future phase II trials, we evaluated historical data from cooperative group phase II trials to attempt to develop benchmarks for OS and PFS as reference points for future phase II trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual-level and trial-level data were obtained for patients enrolled onto 42 phase II trials (70 trial arms) that completed accrual in the years 1975 through 2005 and conducted by Southwest Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic variables, and between-trial(-arm) variability in 1-year OS rates and 6-month PFS rates were examined. RESULTS Statistically significant individual-level and trial-level prognostic factors found in a multivariate survival analysis for OS were performance status, presence of visceral disease, sex, and whether the trial excluded patients with brain metastases. Performance status, sex, and age were statistically significant prognostic factors for PFS. Controlling for these prognostic variables essentially eliminated between-trial variability in 1-year OS rates but not in 6-month PFS rates. CONCLUSION Benchmarks are provided for 1-year OS or OS curves that make use of the distribution of prognostic factors of the patients in the phase II trial. A similar benchmark for 6-month PFS is provided, but its use is more problematic because of residual between-trial variation in this endpoint.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial

Summary Background Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65–69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633. Results Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4–8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70–78 vs 66%, 60–70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61–0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups). Interpretation The benefits of combined modality treatment—ADT and RT—should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Funding Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial of Mitoxantrone/Prednisone and Clodronate Versus Mitoxantrone/Prednisone and Placebo in Patients With Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer and Pain

PURPOSE To compare the incidence of palliative response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP) plus clodronate with that of patients treated with MP plus placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS Men with HRPC, bone metastases, and bone pain were randomly assigned to receive clodronate 1,500 mg administered intravenously (IV) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 IV every 3 weeks and prednisone 5 mg orally bid. Patients completed the present pain intensity (PPI) index and Prostate Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument at each treatment visit and used a diary to record analgesic use on a daily basis. The primary end point was a reduction to zero or of two points in the PPI or a decrease of 50% in analgesic intake, without increase in either. RESULTS The study accrued 209 eligible patients over 44 months. One hundred sixty patients (77%) had mild PPI scores (1 or 2), and 49 (24%) had moderate PPI scores (3 or 4). The primary end point of palliative response was achieved in 46 (46%) of 104 patients on the clodronate arm and in 41 (39%) of 105 patients on the placebo arm (P =.54). The median duration of response, symptomatic disease progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall quality of life were similar between the arms. Subgroup analysis suggested possible benefit in patients with more severe pain. CONCLUSION MP provides useful palliation in symptomatic men with HRPC. Clodronate does not increase the rate of palliative response or overall quality of life. Clodronate may be beneficial to patients who have moderate pain, but this requires further confirmation.

Extending Aromatase-Inhibitor Adjuvant Therapy to 10 Years

BACKGROUND Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years as up-front monotherapy or after tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Extending treatment with an aromatase inhibitor to 10 years may further reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of the extended use of letrozole for an additional 5 years. Our primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS We enrolled 1918 women. After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 165 events involving disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (67 with letrozole and 98 with placebo) and 200 deaths (100 in each group). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 96) with letrozole and 91% (95% CI; 89 to 93) with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer, 0.66; P=0.01 by a two-sided log-rank test stratified according to nodal status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, the interval from the last dose of aromatase-inhibitor therapy, and the duration of treatment with tamoxifen). The rate of 5-year overall survival was 93% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with letrozole and 94% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.97; P=0.83). The annual incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer in the letrozole group was 0.21% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.32), and the rate in the placebo group was 0.49% (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67) (hazard ratio, 0.42; P=0.007). Bone-related toxic effects occurred more frequently among patients receiving letrozole than among those receiving placebo, including a higher incidence of bone pain, bone fractures, and new-onset osteoporosis. No significant differences between letrozole and placebo were observed in scores on most subscales measuring quality of life. CONCLUSIONS The extension of treatment with an adjuvant aromatase inhibitor to 10 years resulted in significantly higher rates of disease-free survival and a lower incidence of contralateral breast cancer than those with placebo, but the rate of overall survival was not higher with the aromatase inhibitor than with placebo. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00003140 and NCT00754845.).

Evaluation of metformin in early breast cancer: a modification of the traditional paradigm for clinical testing of anti-cancer agents

Metformin, an inexpensive oral agent commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes, has been garnering increasing attention as a potential anti-cancer agent. Preclinical, epidemiologic, and clinical evidences suggest that metformin may reduce overall cancer risk and mortality, with specific effects in breast cancer. The extensive clinical experience with metformin, coupled with its known (and modest) toxicity, has allowed the traditional process of drug evaluation to be shortened. We review the rationale for a modified approach to evaluation and outline the key steps that will optimize development of this agent in breast cancer, including discussion of a Phase III adjuvant trial (NCIC MA.32) that has recently been initiated.

Competing Causes of Death From a Randomized Trial of Extended Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND Older women with early-stage breast cancer experience higher rates of non-breast cancer-related death. We examined factors associated with cause-specific death in a large cohort of breast cancer patients treated with extended adjuvant endocrine therapy. METHODS In the MA.17 trial, conducted by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, 5170 breast cancer patients (median age = 62 years; range = 32-94 years) who were disease free after approximately 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment were randomly assigned to treatment with letrozole (2583 women) or placebo (2587 women). The median follow-up was 3.9 years (range 0-7 years). We investigated the association of 11 baseline factors with the competing risks of death from breast cancer, other malignancies, and other causes. All statistical tests were two-sided likelihood ratio criterion tests. RESULTS During follow-up, 256 deaths were reported (102 from breast cancer, 50 from other malignancies, 100 from other causes, and four from an unknown cause). Non-breast cancer deaths accounted for 60% of the 252 known deaths (72% for those > or = 70 years and 48% for those < 70 years). Two baseline factors were differentially associated with type of death: cardiovascular disease was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of death from other causes (P.002), and osteoporosis was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of death from other malignancies (P.05). An increased risk of breast cancer-specific death was associated with lymph node involvement (P < .001). Increased risk of death from all three causes was associated with older age (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Non-breast cancer-related deaths were more common than breast cancer-specific deaths in this cohort of 5-year breast cancer survivors, especially among older women.

Final Report of the Intergroup Randomized Study of Combined Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Plus Radiotherapy Versus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Alone in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Purpose We have previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of this randomized trial. Patients and Methods NCIC Clinical Trials Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110 was a randomized controlled trial of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients with T3-4, N0/Nx, M0 prostate cancer or T1-2 disease with either prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of more than 40 μg/L or PSA of 20 to 40 μg/L plus Gleason score of 8 to 10 were randomly assigned to lifelong ADT alone or to ADT+RT. The RT dose was 64 to 69 Gy in 35 to 39 fractions to the prostate and pelvis or prostate alone. Overall survival was compared using a log-rank test stratified for prespecified variables. Results One thousand two hundred five patients were randomly assigned between 1995 and 2005, 602 to ADT alone and 603 to ADT+RT. At a median follow-up time of 8 years, 465 patients had died, including 199 patients from prostate cancer. Overall survival was significantly improved in the patients allocated to ADT+RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.85; P < .001). Deaths from prostate cancer were significantly reduced by the addition of RT to ADT (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < .001). Patients on ADT+RT reported a higher frequency of adverse events related to bowel toxicity, but only two of 589 patients had grade 3 or greater diarrhea at 24 months after RT. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates that the previously reported benefit in survival is maintained at a median follow-up of 8 years and firmly establishes the role of RT in the treatment of men with locally advanced prostate cancer.