Tumor Burden Modeling Versus Progression-Free Survival for Phase II Decision Making
Open Access
- 15 January 2013
- journal article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Clinical Cancer Research
- Vol. 19 (2), 314-319
- https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2161
Abstract
Randomized Phase II oncology trial endpoints for decision making include both progression-free survival (PFS) and change in tumor burden as measured by the sum of longest diameters (SLD) of the target lesions. In addition to observed SLD changes, tumor shrinkage and growth parameters can be estimated from the patient-specific SLD profile over time. The ability of these SLD analyses to identify an active drug is contrasted with that of a PFS analysis through the simulation of Phase II trials via resampling from each of 6 large, Phase II and III trials, 5 of which were positive and one negative. From each simulated Phase II trial, a P value was obtained from 4 analyses—a log-rank test on PFS, a Wilcoxon rank-sum test on the minimum observed percentage change from baseline in SLD, and 2 nonlinear, mixed-effects model analyses of the SLD profiles. All 4 analyses led to approximately uniformly distributed P values in the negative trial. The PFS analysis was the best or nearly the best analysis in the other 5 trials. In only one of the positive studies did the modeling analysis outperform the analysis of the minimum SLD. In conclusion, for the decision to start a Phase III trial based on the results of a randomized Phase II trial of an oncology drug, PFS appears to be a better endpoint than does SLD, whether analyzed through simple SLD endpoints, such as the minimum percentage change from baseline, or through the modeling of the SLD time course to estimate tumor dynamics. Clin Cancer Res; 19(2); 314–9. ©2012 AACR.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Resampling Phase III Data to Assess Phase II Trial Designs and EndpointsClinical Cancer Research, 2012
- Designing phase II trials in cancer: a systematic review and guidanceBritish Journal of Cancer, 2011
- Randomized Phase II Trials: A Long-term Investment With Promising ReturnsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011
- Analysis of tumor burden versus progression-free survival for Phase II decision makingContemporary Clinical Trials, 2011
- Comparison of Error Rates in Single-Arm Versus Randomized Phase II Cancer Clinical TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Other Paradigms: Growth Rate Constants and Tumor Burden Determined Using Computed Tomography Data Correlate Strongly With the Overall Survival of Patients With Renal Cell CarcinomaThe Cancer Journal, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: The importance of randomisationEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Bevacizumab Reduces the Growth Rate Constants of Renal Carcinomas: A Novel Algorithm Suggests Early Discontinuation of Bevacizumab Resulted in a Lack of Survival AdvantageThe Oncologist, 2008
- Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2005