Randomized phase II selection design with order constrained strata.

The exploratory nature of phase II trials makes it quite common to include heterogeneous patient subgroups with different prognoses in the same trial. Incorporating such patient heterogeneity or stratification into statistical calculation for sample size can improve efficiency and reduce sample sizes in single-arm phase II trials with binary outcomes. However, such consideration is lacking in randomized phase II trials. In this paper, we propose methods that can utilize some natural order constraints that may exist in stratified population to gain statistical efficiency for randomized phase II designs. For thoroughness and simplicity, we focus on the randomized phase II selection designs in this paper, although our method can be easily generalized to the randomized phase II screening designs. We consider both binary and time-to-event outcomes in our development. Compared with methods that do not use order constraints, our method is shown to improve the probabilities of correct selection or reduce sample size in our simulation and real examples.

Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-17): A randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracycline and taxanes often shows rapid progression. The development of effective and tolerable combination regimens for these patients is needed. This phase II trial investigated the efficacy of pemetrexed plus vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase II trial was conducted in 17 centers in Korea. Patients with advanced breast cancer who had previously been treated with anthracyclines and taxanes were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vinorelbine or pemetrexed plus vinorelbine. Randomization was stratified by prior capecitabine treatment and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and August 2019, a total of 125 patients were enrolled. After a median follow-up duration of 14.1 months, 118 progression events and 88 death events had occurred. Sixty-two patients were assigned to the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm, and 63 were assigned to the vinorelbine arm. Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine significantly prolonged PFS compared to vinorelbine (5.7 vs. 1.5 months, p < 0.001). The combination arm had higher disease control rate (76.8% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.001) and a tendency toward longer overall survival (16.8 vs. 10.5 months, p = 0.102). Anemia was more frequent in the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm per cycle compared with vinorelbine (7.9% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), but there was no difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia per cycle between the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm and the vinorelbine single arm (14.7% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.066). CONCLUSIONS: This phase II study showed that pemetrexed plus vinorelbine led to a longer PFS than vinorelbine. Adverse events of pemetrexed plus vinorelbine were generally manageable.

Carboplatin and irinotecan (CI) vs. carboplatin and etoposide (CE) for the treatment of extended-stage small-cell lung cancer in an elderly population: A phase II/III randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cisplatin plus irinotecan has been considered as the standard therapy in younger (<70 years old) patients for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) in Japan. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence for the use of irinotecan in elderly patients with ED-SCLC. This study aimed to demonstrate that carboplatin plus irinotecan (CI) improves overall survival (OS) in elderly patients with ED-SCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized Phase II/III trial which enrolled elderly patients with ED-SCLC. Patients were randomized to the CI or carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) arm in a 1:1 ratio. The CE group intravenously received carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/ml/min on day 1) and etoposide (80 mg/m2 on days 1-3) every 3 weeks for four cycles. The CI group received carboplatin (AUC 4 mg/ml/min on day 1) and irinotecan (50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. RESULTS: In total, 258 patients were enrolled and randomized (CE arm, 129 patients; CI arm, 129 patients). The median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate of the CE vs. CI arms were 12.0 (95% CI, 9.3-13.7) vs. 13.2 (95% CI, 11.1-14.6) months (HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.65-1.11)) (one-sided P = 0.11), 4.4 (95% CI, 4.0-4.7) vs. 4.9 (95% CI, 4.5-5.2) months (HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.66-1.09)), and 59.5% vs. 63.2%, respectively. A higher incidence of myelosuppression was observed in the CE group, whereas a higher incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in the CI group. Three treatment-related deaths occurred (one due to lung infection in the CE arm, and one due to lung infection and sepsis each in the CI arm). CONCLUSIONS: The CI treatment showed favorable efficacy; however, the difference was not statistically significant. These results suggest that CE should remain as the standard chemotherapy regimen for elderly patients with ED-SCLC.

Protocol for the 2ND-STEP study, Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG1802: a randomized phase II trial of second-line treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcoma comparing trabectedin, eribulin and pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare type of malignancy comprising a variety of histological diagnoses. Chemotherapy constitutes the standard treatment for advanced STS. Doxorubicin-based regimens, which include the administration of doxorubicin alone or in combination with ifosfamide or dacarbazine, are widely accepted as first-line chemotherapy for advanced STS. Trabectedin, eribulin, pazopanib, and gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD), which is the empirical standard therapy in Japan, are major candidates for second-line chemotherapy for advanced STS, although clear evidence of the superiority of any one regimen is lacking. The Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) conducts this trial to select the most promising regimen among trabectedin, eribulin, and pazopanib for comparison with GD as the test arm regimen in a future phase III trial of second-line treatment for patients with advanced STS. METHODS: The JCOG1802 study is a multicenter, selection design, randomized phase II trial comparing trabectedin (1.2 mg/m2 intravenously, every 3 weeks), eribulin (1.4 mg/m2 intravenously, days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks), and pazopanib (800 mg orally, every day) in patients with unresectable or metastatic STS refractory to doxorubicin-based first-line chemotherapy. The principal eligibility criteria are patients aged 16 years or above; unresectable and/or metastatic STS; exacerbation within 6 months prior to registration; histopathological diagnosis of STS other than Ewing sarcoma, embryonal/alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, well-differentiated liposarcoma and myxoid liposarcoma; prior doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for STS, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints include overall survival, disease-control rate, response rate, and adverse events. The total planned sample size to correctly select the most promising regimen with a probability of > 80% is 120. Thirty-seven institutions in Japan will participate at the start of this trial. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized trial to evaluate trabectedin, eribulin, and pazopanib as second-line therapies for advanced STS. We endeavor to perform a subsequent phase III trial comparing the best regimen selected by this study (JCOG1802) with GD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials ( jRCTs031190152 ) on December 5, 2019.

CHEOPS trial: a GINECO group randomized phase II assessing addition of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor to oral vinorelbine in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B). RESULTS: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS). CONCLUSION: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open.

Study protocol of the TEC-ORL clinical trial: a randomized comparative phase II trial investigating the analgesic activity of capsaicin vs Laroxyl in head and neck Cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is common in cancer survivorship and is one of the most distressing symptoms for patients previously treated for head and neck cancer. Persistent neuropathic pain, when it is ongoing and uncontrolled, has a detrimental effect and erodes patients' quality of life. Patients treated for head and neck cancer are chronic opioid users to manage their post-treatment pain, which may entail an increased risk of addiction and overdose. We propose to evaluate the analgesic activity of high-concentration capsaicin patches for the treatment of head and neck cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae. METHODS: TEC-ORL is a parallel, multicenter randomized comparative phase II study evaluating whether Capsaïcin patches (Qutenza®) reduce neuropathic pain when compared to Amitriptyline (Laroxyl®) in head and neck cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae. The primary efficacy outcome is the rate of patients with a pain reduction of at least two points at 9 months compared to baseline. Assuming that 5% of patients become lost to follow-up, 130 patients will need to be randomized to detect a 25% improvement (i.e., standard: 25%, experimental: 50%) using a one-sided chi-square test with an alpha of 0.05%. According to the recommendations for comparative phase II trials, the target differences and type I error rates are relaxed. Randomized patients will either be treated with a capsaicin 8% (Qutenza®) patch applied at three time intervals in the experimental arm or with Amitriptyline (Laroxyl®) (oral solution 40 mg/ml) taken for 9 months at the recommended daily dose of 25 mg to 75 mg in the control arm. DISCUSSION: TEC-ORL is a randomized comparative phase II trial designed to comprehensively evaluate the analgesic activity of capsaicin compared to Laroxyl in Head and Neck Cancer survivors presenting with neuropathic pain sequelae. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04704453 Date of registration: 2021/01/13.

Transdermal Maltose-Based Microneedle Patch as Adjunct to Enhance Topical Anesthetic before Intravenous Cannulation of Pediatric Thalassemic Patients Receiving Blood Transfusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

Intravenous cannulation is experientially traumatic to children. To minimize this, EMLA® is applied on the would-be-cannulated area before IV cannula insertion. However, the time to achieve its maximum efficacy may be affected due to incomplete cutaneous absorption and the duration of application. The latter may be a limiting factor in a busy healthcare facility. The usage of dissolvable maltose microneedles may circumvent this problem by introducing micropores that will facilitate EMLA® absorption. A randomized phase II cross-over trial will be conducted to compare the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores and skin conductance algesimeter index between 4 different interventions (1 fingertip unit (FTU) of EMLA® with microneedle patch for 30 min before cannulation; 0.5 FTU of EMLA® with microneedle patch for 30 min; 1 FTU of EMLA® with microneedle for 15 min; 1 FTU of EMLA® with sham patch for 30 min). A total of 26 pediatric patients with thalassemia aged between 6 and 18 years old and requiring blood transfusion will be recruited in this trial. During the visits, the VAS scores and skin conductance algesimeter index at venous cannulation will be obtained using the VAS rulers and PainMonitor™ machine, respectively. The trial will commence in August 2021 and is anticipated to end by August 2022.

Two-stage screened selection designs for randomized phase II trials with time-to-event endpoints.

Phase II exploratory multiarm studies that randomize among new treatments are found to be broadly useful and appear to be of value both scientifically and logistically, especially in the areas of unmet needs, for example, pediatric cancer. This multiarm design also has a faster recruitment rate because it provides patients with more treatment choices than traditional two-arm randomized controlled trials do. In contrast to direct formal comparisons in multiarm multistage designs, for example, umbrella or platform designs, the screened selection design (SSD) recommends using a promising treatment arm by ranking according to the effect size, which often needs lesser sample sizes than the former. In this paper, the usefulness of the phase II SSD design is exemplified by three real trials. However, the existing SSD methods can only deal with binary endpoints. Motivated by the real trials in the authors' respective institutions, we propose using the two-stage SSD and its variant for randomized phase II trials with the time-to-event endpoint. The proposed methods not only provide a high probability of selecting a superior treatment arm but also control the type I error rate for testing the efficacy of each treatment arm versus a common external control. Sample size calculations have been derived and simulation studies demonstrate desirable operating characteristics. The proposed design has been used for designing three real trials. An R package frequentistSSD has been developed and is freely accessible for practitioners.

Randomized Phase II Study of Two Doses of Pixantrone in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (NCCTG N1031, Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Anthracycline use in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is hindered by cumulative exposure limits and risk of cardiotoxicity. Pixantrone, a novel aza-anthracenedione with structural similarities to mitoxantrone and anthracyclines, is theorized to exhibit less cardiotoxicity, mainly due to lack of iron binding. We conducted a randomized phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing schedules of pixantrone in patients with refractory HER2-negative MBC. METHODS: Intravenous pixantrone was administered at 180 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (group A) versus 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (group B). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), median 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life, and serial assessment of circulating tumor cells. A 20% ORR was targeted as sufficient for further testing of pixantrone in this patient population. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were evaluable, with 2 confirmed partial responses in group A and 1 in group B. The trial was terminated due to insufficient activity. Overall median PFS and OS were 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-4.1) and 16.8 (95% CI: 8.9-21.6) months, respectively. Notable overall grade 3-4 adverse events were the following: neutrophil count decrease (62%), fatigue (16%), and decrease in ejection fraction (EF) (4%). CONCLUSION: Pixantrone has insufficient activity in the second- and third-line MBC setting. It appears, however, to have limited cardiotoxicity. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01086605).

Randomized phase II trial of pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab or thoracic radiotherapy followed by surgery for stage IIIA (N2) nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Personalized Induction Therapy-1 is a multicenter, randomized phase II selection design trial of the efficacy and safety of platinum-doublet induction chemotherapy plus angiogenesis inhibitors/concurrent thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) followed by surgery for stage IIIA (N2) nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with pathologically proven stage IIIA (N2) nonsquamous NSCLC were assigned at random to 1 of 2 arms. Patients received (1:1) induction therapy with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles (bevacizumab arm) or concurrent TRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions; TRT arm) before surgery. The primary endpoint was the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were treated, including 42 in the bevacizumab arm and 40 in the TRT arm. Thirty-eight patients (90%) in the bevacizumab arm and 37 patients (93%) in the TRT arm underwent surgery. The objective response rates in the 2 groups were 50% and 60%, respectively (P = .36). The 2-year PFS and overall survival rates were 37% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-51.2%) and 50% (95% CI, 33.8%-64.2%) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; P = .28), respectively, and 81% (95% CI, 64.7%-89.7%) and 80% (95% CI, 64.0%-89.5%) (HR, 1.10; P = .83), respectively. Although grade 5 toxicity did not occur during induction therapy, 2 patients in the bevacizumab arm died due to bronchopleural fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Although not significant, the 2-year PFS rate was higher in the TRT arm than in the bevacizumab arm. Fatal surgical complications were observed only in the bevacizumab arm. Therefore, pemetrexed-cisplatin with concurrent TRT was chosen as the investigational induction treatment strategy for future phase III trials.

In-home Compared With In-Clinic Warfarin Therapy Monitoring in Mechanical Heart Valves: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in time in therapeutic range (TTR), major bleeding, thromboembolism, and survival comparing in-home and in-clinic international normalized ratio monitoring for patients with mechanical heart valves receiving warfarin anticoagulation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational population-based study of 383 patients (mean ± SD age, 61.5±14.1 years; 38.6% female) with mechanical heart valves (aortic, 77.8%; mitral, 31.1%; tricuspid, 1%; pulmonic 0.2%; and multiple, 9.7%) was performed from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017. The target international normalized ratio was 2.5 for 199 patients (52.0%) and 3.0 for 184 (48.0). Of these patients, 37.9% (n=145) were managed by in-home monitoring (cases) and 62.1% (n=238) were monitored in the clinic (controls). RESULTS: During median follow-up of 3.1 years, mean ± SD TTR was similar between in-home (66.6%±19.2%) and in-clinic (67.2%±19.8%) monitoring (P=.76). There were no differences between the in-home and in-clinic groups regarding survival to major bleeding (5.7% per person-year vs 6.7% per person-year; P=.66) or thrombotic complications (2.3% vs 1.8%; P=.56). In-home monitoring was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83; P=.01) on univariate analysis; however, this was no longer apparent when controlling for age and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: In this real-world population-based study of patients with mechanical heart valves, in-home monitoring was equivalent to in-clinic monitoring regarding TTR and important clinical outcomes.

Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer with Either Oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine, and Capecitabine or Cisplatin and Gemcitabine-A Randomized Phase II Trial.

This study is an investigator-initiated randomized phase II trial focusing on the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer with either oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 in a two-week cycle with capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice-daily continuously or cisplatin 25 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 in a three-week cycle. One-hundred patients were included. Forty-seven patients received oxaliplatin, gemcitabine, and capecitabine with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.7 months (95% CI 3.0-7.8) and a median overall survival (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.5-11.2). Forty-nine patients received cisplatin and gemcitabine with a mPFS of 7.3 months (95% CI 6.0-8.7) and a mOS of 12.0 months (95% CI 8.3-16.7). This trial confirms a mOS of 12 months with cisplatin and gemcitabine, as found in earlier trials. With a superior tumor control rate of 79% vs. 60% (p = 0.045), a difference in the mPFS of 1.6 months (HR = 0.721, p = 0.1), and a difference in the mOS of 3.3 months (HR = 0.731, p = 0.1), cisplatin and gemcitabine should still be considered the standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer.

A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial assessing the activity and safety of regorafenib in non-adipocytic sarcoma patients previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) management remains an unmet medical need. We assessed the activity and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic STS who were previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparative randomized phase II trial included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable STS. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional cross-over for centrally confirmed disease progression. Primary end-point was centrally reviewed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-based progression-free survival (PFS), analysed on the intent-to-treat data set. In total, 24 events were required for 90% power, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33 (median PFS, 3.6 versus 1.2 months), and 1-sided α = 0.1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743). RESULTS: From December 2015 to October 2017, 37 patients were randomized; 18 to regorafenib and 19 to placebo. Thirteen patients assigned to placebo switched to regorafenib after progression. Median follow-up was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.4-not reached). We observed a significant PFS benefit of regorafenib compared with placebo (adjusted HR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15-0.74; p = 0.0007 median PFS = 2.1 versus 1.1 months, respectively), and a large and nearly significant overall survival (OS) benefit despite the cross-over (adjusted HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23-1.06; p = 0.007; median OS = 17.8 versus 8.2 months). Before cross-over, the most common grade III or higher adverse events were lymphopenia (5 versus 1, respectively), diarrhoea (4 versus 0), dyspnoea (3 versus 1), skin toxicity (3 versus 0), arterial hypertension (2 versus 0), and increased transaminases (2 versus 0). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated a meaningful clinical anti-tumour activity with regorafenib in heavily pre-treated patients with non-adipocytic STS.

Sample size computation in phase II designs combining the A'Hern design and the Sargent and Goldberg design.

This work focuses on the modification of two classical phase II trials designs, the A'Hern design, a single-arm single-stage design, and the Sargent and Goldberg design introduced in the context of flexible screening designs. In the first part of the paper, we have proposed a drift-adjusted A'Hern design, a hybrid design combining the A'Hern design and the Sargent and Goldberg design. Indeed, classical single-arm phase II designs such as the A'Hern design are still widely used in oncology. Conducting randomized comparative phase II trials may be challenging in many settings due to the increased sample size and this despite larger type 1 errors. Randomized non-comparative phase II designs first introduced by Herson and Carter include a simultaneous randomized standard-treatment reference arm to detect any drift in the reference arm assumption, but the trial is analyzed against historical controls as if it were a single-arm study. However, not incorporating at all an internal control arm in the trial design has been criticized in the literature. Our new design takes into account the observed response rate in a non-comparative reference arm to reduce the trial's risk of a false-positive conclusion. In the second part, we have proposed an alternative strategy to determining the sample size of the screened selection design. The latter, introduced in recent years by Yap et al. and Wu et al., extended the Sargent and Goldberg design to include a comparison to a historical control. However, their sample size computations may have potential weaknesses, which motivated us to revisit the existing approaches. A detailed simulation study has been carried out to evaluate the operating characteristics of the drift-adjusted A'Hern design and the different sample size strategies of the screened selection designs.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Triapine-Cisplatin-Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Stage Uterine Cervix or Vaginal Cancers.

Uterine cervix or vaginal cancers have inherent overactivity of ribonucleotide reductase (RNR), making these cancers rational targets for therapy based on interruption of cisplatin-radiotherapy-induced DNA damage repair. We conducted a pilot, open-label randomized phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cisplatin-radiotherapy with or without triapine, a small molecule with RNR-inhibitory activity, in patients with advanced-stage uterine cervix or vaginal cancers (NCT01835171), as a lead in to a randomized phase III study (NCT02466971). A total of 26 women were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of daily radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy (80 Gy) and once-weekly cisplatin (40 mg m-2)-with or without three-times weekly intravenous triapine (25 mg m-2)-in one 56-days cycle. Primary end points were metabolic complete response by positron emission tomography and safety. Additional end points included the rate of clinical response, rate of methemoglobinemia, and progression-free survival. The addition of triapine to cisplatin-radiotherapy improved the rate of metabolic complete response from 69 to 92% (P = 0.32) and raised the 3-year progression-free survival estimate from 77 to 92% (hazard ratio for progression, 0.30; P = 0.27). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in either treatment group included reversible leukopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, or electrolyte abnormalities. No significant differences were seen between the two groups in the rate of adverse events. Symptomatic methemoglobinemia was not encountered after triapine infusion. In conclusion, the addition of triapine to cisplatin-radiotherapy improved the rate of metabolic complete response in patients with advanced-stage uterine cervix or vaginal cancers without significant toxicity. A phase III trial adequately powered to evaluate progression-free and overall survival is underway (NCT02466971).

Phase II Trials in Drug Development and Adaptive Trial Design.

Phase II clinical studies represent a critical point in determining drug costs, and phase II is a poor predictor of drug success: >30% of drugs entering phase II studies fail to progress, and >58% of drugs go on to fail in phase III. Adaptive clinical trial design has been proposed as a way to reduce the costs of phase II testing by providing earlier determination of futility and prediction of phase III success, reducing overall phase II and III trial sizes, and shortening overall drug development time. This review examines issues in phase II testing and adaptive trial design.

REVERCE: a randomized phase II study of regorafenib followed by cetuximab versus the reverse sequence for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized phase II trial was to evaluate efficacy and safety of the therapeutic sequence of regorafenib followed by cetuximab, compared with cetuximab followed by regorafenib, as the current standard sequence for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized to receive sequential treatment with regorafenib followed by cetuximab ± irinotecan (R-C arm), or the reverse sequence [cetuximab ± irinotecan followed by regorafenib (C-R arm)]. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) with initial treatment (PFS1), PFS with second treatment (PFS2), safety, and quality of life. Exploratory end points included serial biomarker analyses, including oncogenic alterations from circulating tumor DNA or multiple serum or plasma proteins. RESULTS: One-hundred one patients were randomized and eligible for efficacy analysis. Sequential treatment was successful in 86% patients in both arms. Median OS for R-C and C-R was 17.4 and 11.6 months, respectively (P = 0.0293), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.61 for OS [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.96]. The HR for PFS1 (regorafenib in R-C versus cetuximab in C-R) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.61-1.54), and PFS2 (C in R-C versus R in C-R) was 0.29 (95% CI 0.17-0.50). No unexpected safety signals were observed. The quality of life scores during the entire treatment period was not significantly different between the two arms. Circulating biomarker analyses showed emerging oncogenic alterations in RAS, BRAF, EGFR, HER2, and MET, which were more commonly detected after cetuximab than after regorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic sequence of regorafenib followed by cetuximab suggests a longer OS than the current standard sequence.

A phase II randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus S-1 plus cisplatin for completely resected pathological stage II/IIIA non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is the standard postoperative adjuvant treatment for pathological stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Oral S-1 therapy has good efficacy and relatively low toxicity for the treatment of advanced NSCLC. We investigated whether long-term S-1 monotherapy is also useful as an adjuvant therapy after surgery in patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase II randomized open-label multi-institutional study in patients with pathological stage II/IIIA NSCLC (7th TNM classification) who underwent complete resection from 2009 to 2013. The primary endpoint, the 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate, was evaluated using the Bayesian method. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two arms: oral S-1 monotherapy (S-1 arm) and S-1 plus cisplatin combination therapy followed by S-1 (S-1 plus cisplatin arm) both for a total of 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 70 and 71 patients were enrolled in S-1 arm and S-1 plus cisplatin arm, respectively. The 2-year DFS rates were 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.63) and 61% (95% CI, 0.48-0.70) for S-1 arm and S-1 plus cisplatin arm, respectively. Both arms met the primary endpoint. Neither DFS nor OS was significantly different between the arms (log-rank test: P = 0.1695 and P = 0.8684, respectively). The main G3/4 adverse events were loss of appetite and anemia (S-1 vs. S-1 plus cisplatin: 4.3% vs. 11.6% and 0% vs. 5.8%, respectively). The treatment completion rate did not differ between the two arms (S-1 vs. S-1 plus cisplatin: 45.7%, 95% CI, 41.9-66.3% vs. 43.5% 95% CI, 44.0-68.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 was a feasible and promising treatment for patients with completely resected NSCLC, regardless of cisplatin addition. S-1 monotherapy should be investigated further, based on its low toxicity and practical convenience.

Bortezomib plus dexamethasone vs thalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

A randomized phase II selection design study (JCOG0904) was carried out to evaluate the more promising regimen between bortezomib (Bor) plus dexamethasone (Dex; BD) and thalidomide (Thal) plus Dex (TD) in Bor and Thal-naïve patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients ≥20 and <80 years old with a documented diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) who received one or more prior therapies were randomized to receive BD (Bor 1.3 mg/m2 ) or TD (Thal 200 mg/d). In both arms, 8 cycles of induction (3-week cycle) were followed by maintenance phase (5-week cycle) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal. The primary end-point was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS). Forty-four patients were randomized and assigned to receive BD and TD (n = 22, each group). At a median follow-up of 34.3 months, the 1-year PFS in the BD and TD arms were 45.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), 24.4%-64.3%) and 31.8% (95% CI, 14.2%-51.1%), respectively, and the overall response rates were 77.3% and 40.9%, respectively. The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 70.0% (95% CI, 44.9%-85.4%) in the BD, and 48.8% (95% CI, 25.1%-69.0%) in the TD arm. Among grade 3/4 adverse events, thrombocytopenia (54.5% vs 0.0%) and sensory peripheral neuropathy (22.7% vs 9.1%) were more frequent in BD when compared with the TD arm. Patients treated with BD had better outcomes than those treated with TD with regard to 1-year PFS and 3-year OS. Thus, BD was prioritized over TD for further investigations in Bor and Thal-naïve RRMM patients. (Clinical trial registration no. UMIN000003135.).

Randomized phase II study of a bendamustine monotherapy schedule for relapsed or refractory low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma (RABBIT-14).

The aim of this randomized phase II study was to improve the treatment delays and discontinuations associated with bendamustine use by comparing the effect of Benda-14 (intravenous bendamustine, 120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, repeated every 4 weeks for a total of 6 cycles) with those of the standard treatment in relapsed indolent lymphoma and/or mantle cell lymphoma. Forty-six patients were randomly assigned to the treatments from September 2012 to February 2016. Treatment accomplishment rate and median relative dose intensity were similar in both arms: 38 and 63.4% in the Benda-14 arm and 41 and 66.3% in the standard treatment arm, respectively. The overall response rate and median progression-free survival, respectively, were 83% and 21.0 months for Benda-14, and 77% and 15.5 months for the standard treatment. Benda-14 induced favorable responses with less frequent hematological toxicities.