Stable Disease Is Not Preferentially Observed With Targeted Therapies and as Currently Defined Has Limited Value in Drug Development

The assertion that efficacy of “targeted therapies” (TAR) cannot be assessed by traditional response measures has become conventional wisdom often guiding trial design and interpretation. Because stable disease (SD) has been increasingly reported as a measure of activity even for “cytotoxic therapies” (CTX), we sought to compare the occurrence of SD in phase II trials of cytotoxic CTX and TAR. We catalogued response assessments in 143 phase II studies reported in 5 journals between October 2006 and March 2008. Eighty-five studies incorporated CTX and 58 administered TAR. Both groups had comparable distribution of histologies and similar progression free survival (PFS) (median 4.8/2.35 months) and OS (median 10.9/9.15 months). SD was defined in only 28.6% of studies (median 10 weeks). SD rates were nearly identical—mean/median 35.05/34.7% for CTX, and 32.3/31.05% for TAR—with similar distributions across histologies, suggesting SD may not reflect drug activity. There were no positive correlations between %SD and PFS or OS. The overall response rate (complete response + partial response) was higher with CTX therapies (mean/median, 28/25% versus 13.1/5.3%) and in both groups overall response rate demonstrated a strong correlation (P < 0.0001) with PFS and OS. As currently defined and measured SD is not a property of TAR but is as frequently found with CTX therapies and may not reflect antitumor activity. Responses are observed with “both classes” of therapy and should be sought as a measure of activity. Studies that use SD as an end point require an adequate control to distinguish antitumor activity from normal variability in time to progression.

[1]  Linda Mol,et al.  Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  C. García-echeverría,et al.  PI3K and mTOR inhibitors: a new generation of targeted anticancer agents. , 2009, Current opinion in cell biology.

[3]  Thomas S. Lin,et al.  Clinical response and pharmacokinetics from a phase 1 study of an active dosing schedule of flavopiridol in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. , 2009, Blood.

[4]  D. Cella,et al.  Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib versus interferon Alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Seta Shahin,et al.  A randomized phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  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.

[8]  Jeffrey W. Clark,et al.  Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of sorafenib: a review of four phase I trials in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. , 2007, The oncologist.

[9]  Thomas S. Lin,et al.  Flavopiridol administered using a pharmacologically derived schedule is associated with marked clinical efficacy in refractory, genetically high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia. , 2007, Blood.

[10]  Apurva A Desai,et al.  Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Figlin,et al.  Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Francisco Cervantes,et al.  Five-year follow-up of patients receiving imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Dongsheng Tu,et al.  Objective Responses in Patients with Malignant Melanoma or Renal Cell Cancer in Early Clinical Studies Do Not Predict Regulatory Approval , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[14]  Suzanne F. Jones,et al.  Phase I safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity study of lapatinib (GW572016), a reversible dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic carcinomas. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  E. Eisenhauer Special Phase I and II trials of novel anti-cancer agents: Endpoints, efficacy and existentialism , 2005 .

[16]  Giampietro Gasparini,et al.  Combination of antiangiogenic therapy with other anticancer therapies: results, challenges, and open questions. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Mark J Ratain,et al.  Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[19]  M. Ratain,et al.  Development of Target-Based Antineoplastic Agents , 2000, Investigational New Drugs.

[20]  M. Hidalgo,et al.  Multicenter phase II study of erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Thomas J Lynch,et al.  The phase III trial in the era of targeted therapy: unraveling the "go or no go" decision. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  M J Ratain,et al.  Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  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.

[26]  A. Harris,et al.  Anticancer agents targeting signaling molecules and cancer cell environment: challenges for drug development? , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.