Meta-analysis of the relationship between dose and benefit in phase I targeted agent trials.

BACKGROUND To date, the primary objective of phase I trials has been to safely select the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a drug or drug combination for utilization in subsequent trials. Although conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally more effective at the MTD than molecularly targeted agents (MTAs), recent single-institution data suggest that molecularly targeted agent may not require an MTD for efficacy. We analyzed patient outcome results in MTA phase I trials at multiple institutions throughout North America sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. METHODS We retrospectively collected and analyzed data on patients treated on monotherapy phase I trials investigating novel MTAs with a defined MTD from 2000 to 2009. Logistic regression analysis was used to test whether there was an increase in the probability of a response as dose increased. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine if overall survival increased with increasing dose. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS We analyzed 1908 patients treated on 55 eligible clinical trials. The probability of both overall response (complete response plus partial response) and overall survival increased with increasing dose (odds ratio for increased response = 1.56, P = .10; hazard ratio for death = 0.37, P = .008) when controlling for study as a covariate. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated in the context of phase I trials with MTAs continue to derive reasonable clinical benefit. Contrary to other single institution data, our data suggest clinical benefit in terms of increasing response and overall survival with increasing dose.

[1]  J. Lee,et al.  RE: Meta-analysis of the relationship between dose and benefit in phase I targeted agent trials. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  L. Trani,et al.  Defining the risk of toxicity in phase I oncology trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: a single centre experience. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  J Jack Lee,et al.  Change in tumor size by RECIST correlates linearly with overall survival in phase I oncology studies. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  R. Kurzrock,et al.  Patients with Advanced Head and Neck Cancers Have Similar Progression-Free Survival on Phase I Trials and Their Last Food and Drug Administration–Approved Treatment , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  R. Fehrmann,et al.  Defining the risk of toxicity in phase I oncology trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: A single-center experience. , 2010 .

[6]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Phase I Oncology Studies: Evidence That in the Era of Targeted Therapies Patients on Lower Doses Do Not Fare Worse , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

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

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

[9]  S. Cannistra Challenges and pitfalls of combining targeted agents in phase I studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  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.

[11]  R. Kurzrock,et al.  Survival of patients in a phase I clinic: The M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience , 2008 .

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Crowley,et al.  Phase III randomized, intergroup trial assessing imatinib mesylate at two dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing the kit receptor tyrosine kinase: S0033. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  J. Bonneterre,et al.  Prognostic factors among cancer patients with good performance status screened for phase I trials , 2008, Investigational New Drugs.

[15]  Rossella Bertulli,et al.  Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial , 2004, The Lancet.

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

[17]  Edward L Korn,et al.  Nontoxicity endpoints in phase I trial designs for targeted, non-cytotoxic agents. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[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]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. , 2003, JAMA.

[20]  Laurence L. George,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data , 2003, Technometrics.

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

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

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

[24]  J. Kalbfleisch,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data , 1980 .

[25]  W. Pratt,et al.  The Anticancer Drugs , 1979 .

[26]  G. Giaccone,et al.  Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[27]  N. Magné,et al.  Treatment outcome and survival in participants of phase I oncology trials carried out from 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[28]  R Simon,et al.  Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents: are new approaches needed? , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  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.

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