Phase I Oncology Studies: Evidence That in the Era of Targeted Therapies Patients on Lower Doses Do Not Fare Worse

Purpose: To safely assess new drugs, cancer patients in initial cohorts of phase I oncology studies receive low drug doses. Doses are successively increased until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is determined. Because traditional chemotherapy is often more effective near the MTD, ethical concerns have been raised about administration of low drug doses to phase I patients. However, a substantial portion of oncology trials now investigate targeted agents, which may have different dose-response relationships than cytotoxic chemotherapies. Experimental Design: Twenty-four consecutive trials treating 683 patients between October 1, 2004, and June 30, 2008, at MD Anderson Cancer Center were analyzed. Patients were assigned to a low-dose (≤25% MTD), medium-dose (25-75% MTD), or high-dose (≥75% MTD) group, and groups were compared for response rate, time-to-treatment failure, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. To remove negatively biasing data from the high-dose group, in a second analysis, patients treated above the MTD were excluded (high-dose group, 75-100% MTD). Of the 683 patients, 97.7% received targeted agents. Results: Even when excluding patients above the MTD, there was an early trend favoring the low- versus high-dose group in time-to-treatment failure, with 32.9% versus 25.2% of patients on therapy at 3 months (P = 0.08). In addition, the low-dose group fared at least as well as the other groups in all other outcomes, including response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. Conclusions: These data may help alleviate concerns that patients who receive low drug doses on contemporary phase I oncology trials fare worse and suggest targeted agents may have different dose-response relationships than cytotoxic chemotherapies. Clin Cancer Res; 16(4); 1289–97

[1]  H. Swaisland,et al.  Development of the Novel Biologically Targeted Anticancer Agent Gefitinib , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  H. Skipper,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ANTICANCER AGENTS. XIII. ON THE CRITERIA AND KINETICS ASSOCIATED WITH "CURABILITY" OF EXPERIMENTAL LEUKEMIA. , 1964, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[3]  Rupert G. Miller,et al.  Survival Analysis , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, revisited. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Ezekiel J Emanuel,et al.  Risks and benefits associated with novel phase 1 oncology trial designs , 2007, Cancer.

[6]  Mourad Tighiouart,et al.  New Paradigm in Dose-Finding Trials: Patient-Specific Dosing and Beyond Phase I , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  I. Tannock,et al.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 clinical trials evaluating new anticancer agents: a case for more innovation. , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  M. Pagano,et al.  Survival analysis. , 1996, Nutrition.

[9]  D. D. Hoff,et al.  Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics , 1991, Investigational New Drugs.

[10]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Steven Joffe,et al.  Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  J. Verweij,et al.  Clinical Trial Design for Target Specific Anticancer Agents , 2003, Investigational New Drugs.

[13]  M J Ratain,et al.  Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  M. Lipsett On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. , 1982, JAMA.

[16]  H. Fujita [Anticancer drugs]. , 1995, Nihon rinsho. Japanese journal of clinical medicine.

[17]  G. Decoster,et al.  Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. , 1990, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[18]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  H. Skipper,et al.  Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents VIII. Effects of certain nitrosoureas on intracerebral L1210 leukemia. , 1963, Cancer research.

[20]  C. Daugherty Ethical Issues in the Development of New Agents , 2004, Investigational New Drugs.

[21]  L. Seymour The design of clinical trials for new molecularly targeted compounds: progress and new initiatives. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical design.

[22]  I. Haines Dose selection in phase I studies: why we should always go for the most effective. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  P. Angelos Ethical Issues in Cancer Patient Care , 2000, Cancer Treatment and Research.

[24]  M. Ratain,et al.  Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Elkan F Halpern,et al.  Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. , 2004, JAMA.

[26]  S. Sleijfer,et al.  Dose selection in phase I studies: why we should always go for the top. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  M. Markman Assessing cancer clinical trials: will your patient benefit from a 'breakthrough'? , 2002, Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine.

[28]  G. Bonadonna,et al.  Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  H. Pinedo,et al.  Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (NSC 127716) in cancer patients. , 1986, Cancer research.

[30]  A. Miller,et al.  Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.

[31]  R. Aur,et al.  Drug dosage and remission duration in childhood lymphocytic leukemia , 1971, Cancer.

[32]  R. Gelman,et al.  Dose-response in the treatment of breast cancer: a critical review. , 1988, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[33]  Mark J. Ratain,et al.  Critical role of phase I clinical trials in cancer treatment. American Society of Clinical Oncology. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  M. Christian,et al.  Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  R. Kurzrock,et al.  Survival of patients in a Phase 1 clinic , 2009, Cancer.

[36]  Guillermo Garcia-Manero,et al.  Evolution of decitabine development , 2008, Cancer.

[37]  I Judson,et al.  Clinical benefit in Phase-I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: does dose matter? , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[38]  Seiichiro Yamamoto,et al.  Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  M. Lübbert,et al.  Low-dose 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine, a DNA hypomethylating agent, for the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: a multicenter phase II study in elderly patients. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[40]  Elizabeth Fox,et al.  Clinical trial design for target-based therapy. , 2002, The oncologist.

[41]  Neal J Meropol,et al.  Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  R. Wittes,et al.  Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. , 1986, Cancer treatment reports.