Assessment of Patient-Derived Xenograft Growth and Antitumor Activity: The NCI PDXNet Consensus Recommendations.

Although patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are commonly used for preclinical modeling in cancer research, a standard approach to in vivo tumor growth analysis and assessment of antitumor activity is lacking, complicating comparison of different studies and determination of whether a PDX experiment has produced evidence needed to consider a new therapy promising. We present consensus recommendations for assessment of PDX growth and antitumor activity, providing public access to a suite of tools for in vivo growth analyses. We expect that harmonizing PDX study design and analysis and access to a suite of analytical tools will enhance information exchange and facilitate identification of promising novel therapies and biomarkers for guiding cancer therapy.

Pharmacodynamic effects of the PARP inhibitor talazoparib (MDV3800, BMN 673) in patients with BRCA-mutated advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Talazoparib is an inhibitor of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) family of enzymes and is FDA-approved for patients with (suspected) deleterious germline BRCA1/2-mutated, HER2­negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Because knowledge of the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of talazoparib in patients has been limited to studies of PARP enzymatic activity (PARylation) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, we developed a study to assess tumoral PD response to talazoparib treatment (NCT01989546). METHODS: We administered single-agent talazoparib (1 mg/day) orally in 28-day cycles to adult patients with advanced solid tumors harboring (suspected) deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The primary objective was to examine the PD effects of talazoparib; the secondary objective was to determine overall response rate (ORR). Tumor biopsies were mandatory at baseline and post-treatment on day 8 (optional at disease progression). Biopsies were analyzed for PARylation, DNA damage response (γH2AX), and epithelial‒mesenchymal transition. RESULTS: Nine patients enrolled in this trial. Four of six patients (67%) evaluable for the primary PD endpoint exhibited a nuclear γH2AX response on day 8 of treatment, and five of six (83%) also exhibited strong suppression of PARylation. A transition towards a more mesenchymal phenotype was seen in 4 of 6 carcinoma patients, but this biological change did not affect γH2AX or PAR responses. The ORR was 55% with the five partial responses lasting a median of six cycles. CONCLUSION: Intra-tumoral DNA damage response and inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity were confirmed in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring BRCA1/2 mutations after 8 days of talazoparib treatment.

Trametinib in Patients With NF1-, GNAQ-, or GNA11-Mutant Tumors: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocols S1 and S2.

PURPOSE: NCI-MATCH is a precision medicine trial using genomic testing to allocate patients with advanced malignancies to targeted treatment subprotocols. This report combines two subprotocols evaluating trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1[S1] or GNA11/Q [S2]) altered tumors. METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors with deleterious inactivating NF1 or GNA11/Q mutations by the customized Oncomine AmpliSeq panel. Prior MEK inhibitor treatment was excluded. Glioblastomas (GBMs) were permitted, including malignancies associated with germline NF1 mutations (S1 only). Trametinib was administered at 2 mg once daily over 28-day cycles until toxicity or disease progression. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, PFS, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses included co-occurring genomic alterations and PTEN loss. RESULTS: Fifty patients were eligible and started therapy: 46 with NF1 mutations (S1) and four with GNA11 mutations (S2). In the NF1 cohort, nonsense single-nucleotide variants were identified in 29 and frameshift deletions in 17 tumors. All in S2 had nonuveal melanoma and GNA11 Q209L variant. Two partial responses (PR) were noted in S1, one patient each with advanced lung cancer and GBM for an ORR of 4.3% (90% CI, 0.8 to 13.1). One patient with melanoma in S2 had a PR (ORR, 25%; 90% CI, 1.3 to 75.1). Prolonged stable disease (SD) was also noted in five patients (four in S1 and one in S2) with additional rare histologies. Adverse events were as previously described with trametinib. Comutations in TP53 and PIK3CA were common. CONCLUSION: Although these subprotocols did not meet the primary end point for ORR, significant responses or prolonged SD noted in some disease subtypes warrants further investigation.

Clinical Activity of Single-Agent Cabozantinib (XL184), a Multi-receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients with Refractory Soft-Tissue Sarcomas.

PURPOSE: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare, heterogeneous group of mesenchymal tumors. For decades the mainstay of treatment for advanced, unresectable STS has been palliative chemotherapy. High levels of activated MET receptor have been reported in various sarcoma cell lines, together with elevated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels in patients with STS, suggesting that dual targeting of the VEGF and MET pathways with the multi-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib would result in clinical benefit in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed an open-label, multi-institution, single-arm phase II trial of single-agent cabozantinib in adult patients with advanced STS and progressive disease after at least 1 standard line of systemic therapy. Patients received 60 mg oral cabozantinib once daily in 28-day cycles, and dual primary endpoints of overall response rate and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Changes in several circulating biomarkers were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Six (11.1%; 95% CI, 4.2%-22.6%) of the 54 evaluable patients enrolled experienced objective responses (all partial responses). Six-month PFS was 49.3% (95% CI, 36.2%-67.3%), with a median time on study of 4 cycles (range, 1-99). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hypertension (7.4%) and neutropenia (16.7%). Patients' levels of circulating hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), soluble MET, and VEGF-A generally increased after a cycle of therapy, while soluble VEGFR2 levels decreased, regardless of clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib single-agent antitumor activity was observed in patients with selected STS histologic subtypes (alveolar soft-part sarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma, and leiomyosarcoma) highlighting the biomolecular diversity of STS.

Molecular Profiling-Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT): A Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial.

This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS: Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION: Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer may be at increased risk for adverse events (AEs) due to peritoneal disease burden and prior treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and pelvic radiotherapy). This study compared the toxicity profiles of patients with and without gynecologic cancer enrolled in phase 1 trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute phase 1 database for all trials enrolling 1 or more patients with gynecologic cancer over 2 decades (1995-2015). Clinical parameters collected included demographics, cancer history, trial information, AEs, and responses. AEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were documented for each patient during treatment, and they were counted once and analyzed on the basis of the highest grade and drug attribution. Multiple regression models were used to compare AEs at the baseline and during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 4269 patients enrolled in 150 trials were divided into 3 groups: 1) women with gynecologic cancer (n = 685), 2) women with nongynecologic cancer (n = 1698), and 3) men with cancer (n = 1886). The median age was 58 years. The mean number of total AEs reported during treatment was highest for women with gynecologic cancer (17.1 vs 14.7 vs 13.5; P < .001), even though they were similar at the baseline (7.0 vs 7.4 vs 7.0; P = .09). The mean number of drug-related AEs was also highest for women with gynecologic cancer (8.3 vs 6.9 vs 6.2; P < .001). Grade 3 to 5 AEs were similar (2.3 vs 2.3 vs 2.1); however, grade 2 AEs were more frequent in women with gynecologic cancer (4.6 vs 3.9 vs 3.5). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were similar (9% vs 9% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancer experienced more frequent low-grade AEs during treatment, and this warrants attention to support their symptom burden. Study dose management should be considered for recurrent grade 2 AEs, particularly during continuous therapy.

Clinical Evolution of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Human Carcinomas.

The significance of the phenotypic plasticity afforded by epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) for cancer progression and drug resistance remains to be fully elucidated in the clinic. We evaluated epithelial-mesenchymal phenotypic characteristics across a range of tumor histologies using a validated, high-resolution digital microscopic immunofluorescence assay (IFA) that incorporates ß-catenin detection and cellular morphology to delineate carcinoma cells from stromal fibroblasts and that quantitates the individual and colocalized expression of the epithelial marker E-cadherin (E) and the mesenchymal marker vimentin (V) at subcellular resolution ("EMT-IFA"). We report the discovery of ß-catenin+ cancer cells that coexpress E-cadherin and vimentin in core-needle biopsies from patients with various advanced metastatic carcinomas, wherein these cells are transitioning between strongly epithelial and strongly mesenchymal-like phenotypes. Treatment of carcinoma models with anticancer drugs that differ in their mechanism of action (the tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib in MKN45 gastric carcinoma xenografts and the combination of tubulin-targeting agent paclitaxel with the BCR-ABL inhibitor nilotinib in MDA-MB-468 breast cancer xenografts) caused changes in the tumor epithelial-mesenchymal character. Moreover, the appearance of partial EMT or mesenchymal-like carcinoma cells in MDA-MB-468 tumors treated with the paclitaxel-nilotinib combination resulted in upregulation of cancer stem cell (CSC) markers and susceptibility to FAK inhibitor. A metastatic prostate cancer patient treated with the PARP inhibitor talazoparib exhibited similar CSC marker upregulation. Therefore, the phenotypic plasticity conferred on carcinoma cells by EMT allows for rapid adaptation to cytotoxic or molecularly targeted therapy and could create a form of acquired drug resistance that is transient in nature. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the role of EMT in metastasis and drug resistance, no standardized assessment of EMT phenotypic heterogeneity in human carcinomas exists; the EMT-IFA allows for clinical monitoring of tumor adaptation to therapy.

A phase I pharmacokinetic study of belinostat in patients with advanced cancers and varying degrees of liver dysfunction.

AIMS: The histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat has activity in various cancers. Because belinostat is metabolized by the liver, reduced hepatic clearance could lead to excessive drug accumulation and increased toxicity. Safety data in patients with liver dysfunction are needed for this drug to reach its full potential in the clinic. METHODS: We performed a phase 1 trial to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of belinostat in patients with advanced cancer and varying degrees of liver dysfunction. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled and divided into cohorts based on liver function. In patients with mild dysfunction, the MTD was the same as the recommended phase 2 dose (1000 mg/m2 /day). Belinostat was well tolerated in patients with moderate and severe liver dysfunction, although the trial was closed before the MTD in these cohorts could be determined. The mean clearance of belinostat was 661 mL/min/m2 in patients with normal liver function, compared to 542, 505 and 444 mL/min/m2 in patients with mild, moderate and severe hepatic dysfunction. Although this trial was not designed to assess clinical activity, of the 47 patients evaluable for response, 13 patients (28%) experienced stable disease. CONCLUSION: While a statistically significant difference in clearance indicates increased belinostat exposure with worsening liver function, no relationship was observed between belinostat exposure and toxicity. An assessment of belinostat metabolites revealed significant differences in metabolic pathway capability in patients with differing levels of liver dysfunction. Further studies are needed to establish formal dosing guidelines in this patient population.

Factors Affecting Combination Trial Success (FACTS): Investigator Survey Results on Early-Phase Combination Trials.

Experimental therapeutic oncology agents are often combined to circumvent tumor resistance to individual agents. However, most combination trials fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to advance to a later phase. This study collected survey data on phase 1 combination therapy trials identified from ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2003 and November 30, 2017 to assess trial design and the progress of combinations toward regulatory approval. Online surveys (N = 289, 23 questions total) were emailed to Principal Investigators (PIs) of early-phase National Cancer Institute and/or industry trials; 263 emails (91%) were received and 113 surveys completed (43%). Among phase 1 combination trials, 24.9% (95%CI: 15.3%, 34.4%) progressed to phase 2 or further; 18.7% (95%CI: 5.90%, 31.4%) progressed to phase 3 or regulatory approval; and 12.4% (95%CI: 0.00%, 25.5%) achieved regulatory approval. Observations of "clinical promise" in phase 1 combination studies were associated with higher rates of advancement past each milestone toward regulatory approval (cumulative OR = 11.9; p = 0.0002). Phase 1 combination study designs were concordant with Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) Recommendations 79.6% of the time (95%CI: 72.2%, 87.1%). Most discordances occurred where no plausible pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions were expected. Investigator-defined "clinical promise" of a combination is associated with progress toward regulatory approval. Although concordance between study designs of phase 1 combination trials and CTD-TF Recommendations was relatively high, it may be beneficial to raise awareness about the best study design to use when no plausible pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions are expected.

What Can Be Done to Improve Research Biopsy Quality in Oncology Clinical Trials?

PURPOSE:: Research biopsy specimens collected in clinical trials often present requirements beyond those of tumor biopsy specimens collected for diagnostic purposes. Research biopsies underpin hypothesis-driven drug development, pharmacodynamic assessment of molecularly targeted anticancer agents, and, increasingly, genomic assessment for precision medicine; insufficient biopsy specimen quality or quantity therefore compromises the scientific value of a study and the resources devoted to it, as well as each patient's contribution to and potential benefit from a clinical trial. METHODS:: To improve research biopsy specimen quality, we consulted with other translational oncology teams and reviewed current best practices. RESULTS:: Among the recommendations were improving communication between oncologists and interventional radiologists, providing feedback on specimen sufficiency, increasing academic recognition and financial support for the time investment required by radiologists to collect and preserve research biopsy specimens, and improving real-time assessment of tissue quality. CONCLUSION:: Implementing these recommendations at the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Clinic has demonstrably improved the quality of biopsy specimens collected; more widespread dissemination of these recommendations beyond large clinical cancer centers is possible and will be of value to the community in improving clinical research and, ultimately, patient care.

National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Steering Committee Working Group Report on Meaningful and Appropriate End Points for Clinical Trials in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based consensus recommendations on choice of end points for clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer, with a focus on biologic subtype and line of therapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Steering Committee convened a working group of breast medical oncologists, patient advocates, biostatisticians, and liaisons from the Food and Drug Administration to conduct a detailed curated systematic review of the literature, including original reports, reviews, and meta-analyses, to determine the current landscape of therapeutic options, recent clinical trial data, and natural history of four biologic subtypes of breast cancer. Ongoing clinical trials for metastatic breast cancer in each subtype also were reviewed from ClinicalTrials.gov for planned primary end points. External input was obtained from the pharmaceutic/biotechnology industry, real-world clinical data specialists, experts in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and combined metrics for assessing magnitude of clinical benefit. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 146 publications to inform the recommendations from the working group. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for appropriate end points for metastatic breast cancer clinical trials focus on biologic subtype and line of therapy and the magnitude of absolute and relative gains that would represent meaningful clinical benefit.

CREATE-X a role for capecitabine in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of available data.

Breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery may benefit from additional anti-cancer therapies. Capecitabine, an oral antimetabolite and prodrug of 5-Flurouracil, has been approved for treating metastatic breast cancer. One randomized clinical trial (CREATE-X) of capecitabine versus no additional therapy has been conducted in women with early stage breast cancer who received standard chemotherapy pre-operative therapy and had residual invasive breast cancer at the time of surgery. Results from CREATE-X, showed that capecitabine had a statistically significant survival advantage compared with no additional therapy. This perspective provides a review and analysis of the available data from CREATEx in the context of results from other adjuvant trials of capecitabine in early stage breast cancer that had disease-free survival as a primary endpoint. We conclude that although the previously published studies of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting did not meet their primary endpoint, the data from these studies are consistent with the hypothesis that capecitabine may offer additional survival benefit in patients with chemo-refractory breast cancer at the time of surgery after receiving standard chemotherapy. In these patients, offering a course of adjuvant capecitabine or enrolling the patient in a clinical trial are appropriate therapeutic options. The patient should be informed about both the increased survival observed in the CREATEx trial and the expected toxicities from capecitabine chemotherapy.

Creating clinical trial designs that incorporate clinical outcome assessments.

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are increasingly being used in determining the efficacy of new treatment regimens. This was typified in the recent use of a symptom-based instrument combined with an organ-based measure of response for the approval of ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis. There are challenges in incorporating these COAs into clinical trials, including designating the level of priority, incorporating these measures into a combined or composite endpoint, and dealing with issues related to compliance and interpretation of results accounting for missing data. This article describes the results of a recent panel discussion that attempted to address these issues and provide guidance to the incorporation of COAs into clinical trials, including novel statistical designs, so that the testing of new treatments in patients with cancers of the central nervous system can incorporate these important clinical endpoints.

Phase I Safety, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Study of the Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitor Veliparib (ABT-888) in Combination with Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: PARP is essential for recognition and repair of DNA damage. In preclinical models, PARP inhibitors modulate topoisomerase I inhibitor-mediated DNA damage. This phase I study determined the MTD, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of veliparib, an orally bioavailable PARP1/2 inhibitor, in combination with irinotecan. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with 100 mg/m(2) irinotecan on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Twice-daily oral dosing of veliparib (10-50 mg) occurred on days 3 to 14 (cycle 1) and days -1 to 14 (subsequent cycles) followed by a 6-day rest. PK studies were conducted with both agents alone and in combination. Paired tumor biopsies were obtained after irinotecan alone and veliparib/irinotecan to evaluate PARP1/2 inhibition and explore DNA damage signals (nuclear γ-H2AX and pNBS1). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated. DLTs included fatigue, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and neutropenia. The MTD was 100 mg/m(2) irinotecan (days 1 and 8) combined with veliparib 40 mg twice daily (days -1-14) on a 21-day cycle. Of 31 response-evaluable patients, there were six (19%) partial responses. Veliparib exhibited linear PK, and there were no apparent PK interactions between veliparib and irinotecan. At all dose levels, veliparib reduced tumor poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) content in the presence of irinotecan. Several samples showed increases in γ-H2AX and pNBS1 after veliparib/irinotecan compared with irinotecan alone. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib can be safely combined with irinotecan at doses that inhibit PARP catalytic activity. Preliminary antitumor activity justifies further evaluation of the combination. Clin Cancer Res; 22(13); 3227-37. ©2016 AACR.

Analytical Validation and Application of a Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Mutation-Detection Assay for Use in Treatment Assignment in the NCI-MPACT Trial.

Robust and analytically validated assays are essential for clinical studies. We outline an analytical validation study of a targeted next-generation sequencing mutation-detection assay used for patient selection in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Profiling-Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT) trial (NCT01827384). Using DNA samples from normal or tumor cell lines and xenografts with known variants, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the NCI-MPACT assay in five variant types: single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), SNVs at homopolymeric (HP) regions (≥3 identical bases), small insertions/deletions (indels), large indels (gap ≥4 bp), and indels at HP regions. The assay achieved sensitivities of 100% for 64 SNVs, nine SNVs at HP regions, and 11 large indels, 83.33% for six indels, and 93.33% for 15 indels at HP regions. Zero false positives (100% specificity) were found in 380 actionable mutation loci in 96 runs of haplotype map cells. Reproducibility analysis showed 96.3% to 100% intraoperator and 98.1% to 100% interoperator mean concordance in detected variants and 100% reproducibility in treatment selection. To date, 38 tumors have been screened, 34 passed preanalytical quality control, and 18 had actionable mutations for treatment assignment. The NCI-MPACT assay is well suited for its intended investigational use and can serve as a template for developing next-generation sequencing assays for other cancer clinical trial applications.

GeneMed: An Informatics Hub for the Coordination of Next-Generation Sequencing Studies that Support Precision Oncology Clinical Trials.

We have developed an informatics system, GeneMed, for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) molecular profiling-based assignment of cancer therapy (MPACT) clinical trial (NCT01827384) being conducted in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center. This trial is one of the first to use a randomized design to examine whether assigning treatment based on genomic tumor screening can improve the rate and duration of response in patients with advanced solid tumors. An analytically validated next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay is applied to DNA from patients' tumors to identify mutations in a panel of genes that are thought likely to affect the utility of targeted therapies available for use in the clinical trial. The patients are randomized to a treatment selected to target a somatic mutation in the tumor or with a control treatment. The GeneMed system streamlines the workflow of the clinical trial and serves as a communications hub among the sequencing lab, the treatment selection team, and clinical personnel. It automates the annotation of the genomic variants identified by sequencing, predicts the functional impact of mutations, identifies the actionable mutations, and facilitates quality control by the molecular characterization lab in the review of variants. The GeneMed system collects baseline information about the patients from the clinic team to determine eligibility for the panel of drugs available. The system performs randomized treatment assignments under the oversight of a supervising treatment selection team and generates a patient report containing detected genomic alterations. NCI is planning to expand the MPACT trial to multiple cancer centers soon. In summary, the GeneMed system has been proven to be an efficient and successful informatics hub for coordinating the reliable application of NGS to precision medicine studies.

Historical controls for metastatic pancreatic cancer: benchmarks for planning and analyzing single-arm phase II trials.

We compiled and analyzed a database of cooperative group trials in advanced pancreatic cancer to develop historical benchmarks for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Such benchmarks are essential for evaluating new therapies in a single-arm setting. The analysis included patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving regimens that included gemcitabine, between 1995 and 2005. Prognostic baseline factors were selected by their significance in Cox regression analysis. Outlier trial arms were identified by comparing individual 6-month OS and PFS rates against the entire group. The dataset selected for the generation of OS and PFS benchmarks was then tested for intertrial arm variability using a logistic-normal model with the selected baseline prognostic factors as fixed effects and the individual trial arm as a random effect. A total of 1,132 cases from eight trials qualified. Performance status and sex were independently significant for OS, and performance status was prognostic for PFS. Outcomes for one trial (NCCTG-034A) were significantly different from the other trial arms. When this trial was excluded, the remaining trial arms were homogeneous for OS and PFS outcomes after adjusting for performance status and sex. Benchmark values for 6-month OS and PFS are reported along with a method for using these values in future study design and analysis. The benchmark survival values were generated from a dataset that was homogeneous between trials. The benchmarks can be used to enable single-arm phase II trials using a gemcitabine platform, especially under certain circumstances. Such circumstances might be when a randomized control arm is not practically feasible, an early signal of activity of an experimental agent is being explored such as in expansion cohorts of phase I studies, and in patients who are not candidates for combination cytotoxic therapy.

Similar efficacy for phase I trials in comparison with DTIC for advanced malignant melanoma: an analysis of melanoma outcomes in CTEP-sponsored phase I trials 1995-2011.

After ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and interleukin-2, standard of care chemotherapy for melanoma remains dacarbazine (response rate ∼9%). Despite this, many physicians hesitate to refer patients to phase I protocols given a perceived lack of clinical benefit and potential for harm. To better understand the validity of these perceptions, the experience of all patients with melanoma treated on phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute-Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI-CTEP) from 1995 to 2011 were analyzed and compared with the pooled results of six contemporary phase III trials of dacarbazine. A total of 937 patients with melanoma were treated in 148 CTEP phase I trials. The majority were men with a median of two prior therapies (46% receiving prior dacarbazine). Response and clinical benefit rates in these trials were not clinically different from those of dacarbazine (phase I: 6.3 and 26.8% vs. dacarbazine: 8.8 and 27.9%) although grades 3 and 4 toxicity was significantly higher (54 vs. 28%). Efficacy and toxicity were generally consistent within phase I subgroups (targeted agents, immunotherapies, or chemotherapeutics) though targeted therapy was associated with a lower response rate, immunotherapy with lower clinical benefit rate, and chemotherapy with higher incidence of grade 4 toxicity. Thus, the perception of limited efficacy of phase I trials for patients with melanoma was disproven, whereas the perception of toxicity was observed. However, this difference in toxicity may have been largely because of the nature of phase I vs. phase III trials (i.e. more heavily pretreated) and because of the phase I trials often being multiagent as opposed to dacarbazine alone.

First-line therapy in ovarian cancer trials.

At the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010, representatives of 23 cooperative research groups studying gynecologic cancers gathered to establish international consensus on issues critical to the conduct of large randomized trials. The process focused on 13 predetermined questions. Group A, 1 of the 3 discussion groups, addressed the first 5 questions, examining first-line therapies in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. A1: What are the appropriate end points for different trials (maintenance, upfront chemotherapy trials including molecular drugs)? A2: Are there any subgroups defined by tumor biology who need specific treatment options/trials? A3: Is the 2004 GCIG-recommended standard comparator arm still valid? A4: What is the role of modifying dose, schedule, and delivery of chemotherapy? A5: What role does surgery play today?