A confidence function-based posterior probability design for phase II cancer trials.

Single-arm one- or multi-stage study designs are commonly used in phase II oncology development when the primary outcome of interest is tumor response, a binary variable. Both two- and three-outcome designs are available. Simon two-stage design is a well-known example of two-outcome designs. The objective of a two-outcome trial is to reject either the null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is less than or equal to a pre-specified low uninteresting rate or to reject the alternative hypothesis that the ORR is greater than or equal to some target rate. Three-outcome designs proposed by Sargent et al. allow a middle gray decision zone which rejects neither hypothesis in order to reduce the required study size. We propose new two- and three-outcome designs with continual monitoring based on Bayesian posterior probability that meet frequentist specifications such as type I and II error rates. Futility and/or efficacy boundaries are based on confidence functions, which can require higher levels of evidence for early versus late stopping and have clear and intuitive interpretations. We search in a class of such procedures for optimal designs that minimize a given loss function such as average sample size under the null hypothesis. We present several examples and compare our design with other procedures in the literature and show that our design has good operating characteristics.

Effect of radium-223 dichloride on symptomatic skeletal events in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases: results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases frequently cause skeletal events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) selectively targets bone metastases with high-energy, short-range α-particles. We assessed the effect of radium-223 compared with placebo in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised ALSYMPCA trial, we enrolled patients who had symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more bone metastases and no known visceral metastases, who were receiving best standard of care, and had previously either received or were unsuitable for docetaxel. Patients were stratified by previous docetaxel use, baseline total alkaline phosphatase level, and current bisphosphonate use, then randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either six intravenous injections of radium-223 (50 kBq/kg) or matching placebo; one injection was given every 4 weeks. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system, taking into account trial stratification factors. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which has been reported previously. Here we report on time to first symptomatic skeletal event, defined as the use of external beam radiation to relieve bone pain, or occurrence of a new symptomatic pathological fracture (vertebral or non-verterbal), or occurence of spinal cord compression, or tumour-related orthopeadic surgical intervention. All events were required to be clinically apparent and were not assessed by periodic radiological review. Statistical analyses of symptomatic skeletal events were based on the intention-to-treat population. The study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699751. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2008, and Feb 1, 2011, 921 patients were enrolled, of whom 614 (67%) were randomly assigned to receive radium-223 and 307 (33%) placebo. Symptomatic skeletal events occurred in 202 (33%) of 614 patients in the radium-223 group and 116 (38%) of 307 patients in the placebo group. Time to first symptomatic skeletal event was longer with radium-223 than with placebo (median 15·6 months [95% CI 13·5-18·0] vs 9·8 months [7·3-23·7]; hazard ratio [HR]=0·66, 95% CI 0·52-0·83; p=0·00037). The risks of external beam radiation therapy for bone pain (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·85) and spinal cord compression (HR=0·52, 95% CI 0·29-0·93) were reduced with radium-233 compared with placebo. Radium-223 treatment did not seem to significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic pathological bone fracture (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·35-1·09), or the need for tumour-related orthopaedic surgical intervention (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·28-1·82). INTERPRETATION: Radium-223 should be considered as a treatment option for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases. FUNDING: Algeta and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Improving Collection and Analysis of Overall Survival Data.

Advances in anticancer therapies have provided crucial benefits for millions of patients who are living long and fulfilling lives. While these successes should be celebrated, there is certainly room to continue improving cancer care. Increased long-term survival presents additional challenges for determining whether new therapies further extend patients' lives through clinical trials, commonly known as the gold standard endpoint of overall survival (OS). As a result, there is an increasing reliance on earlier efficacy endpoints , which may or may not correlate with OS, to continue the timely pace of translating innovation into novel therapies available for patients. Even when not powered as an efficacy endpoint, OS remains a critical indication of safety for regulatory decisions and is a key aspect of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Project Endpoint. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of earlier endpoints, many registrational clinical trials lack adequate planning, collection, and analysis of OS data, which complicates interpretation of a net clinical benefit or harm. This article shares best practices, proposes novel statistical methodologies, and provides detailed recommendations to improve the rigor of using OS data to inform benefit-risk assessments, including incorporating the following in clinical trials intending to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a cancer therapy: prospective collection of OS data, establishment of fit-for-purpose definitions of OS detriment, and prespecification of analysis plans for using OS data to evaluate for potential harm. These improvements hold promise to help regulators, patients and providers better understand the benefits and risks of novel therapies.

A randomized phase II trial of maintenance therapy with Sorafenib in front-line ovarian carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the VEGFR/PDGFR/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway, has shown potential activity in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). One strategy to prolong disease control and survival in patients with OC is maintenance therapy after achieving a complete response. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with sorafenib in the treatment of OC is presented. METHODS: Patients with epithelial OC or primary peritoneal cancer in complete remission were randomized to sorafenib 400mg BID or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 246 randomized patients, 93% had OC; baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms. There was no significant difference between sorafenib and placebo arms for PFS (median 12.7 vs 15.7 months; hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI 0.72-1.63), although there was a notable imbalance in early censoring. The most common ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were hand-foot skin reaction (39.0% vs 0.8%) and rash (14.6% vs 0%). More patients receiving sorafenib versus placebo required dose reductions (67.5% vs 30.1%), resulting in a lower than planned median daily dose (median 584.6 vs 800.0mg). Treatment with sorafenib was of shorter duration (median 17.6 vs 51.9 weeks) with more frequent discontinuations due to AEs (37.4% vs 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib 400mg BID cannot be recommended as maintenance therapy for patients with OC in complete remission. Assessment of efficacy was limited by the high rate of dose reductions and early discontinuations.

Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00105443.)

Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: From November 2003 to March 2005, we randomly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo; 451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo. Consequently, crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib, beginning in May 2005. RESULTS: At the January 2005 cutoff, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.55; P<0.01). The first interim analysis of overall survival in May 2005 showed that sorafenib reduced the risk of death, as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94; P=0.02), although this benefit was not statistically significant according to the O'Brien-Fleming threshold. Partial responses were reported as the best response in 10% of patients receiving sorafenib and in 2% of those receiving placebo (P<0.001). Diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reactions were the most common adverse events associated with sorafenib. Hypertension and cardiac ischemia were rare serious adverse events that were more common in patients receiving sorafenib than in those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo, treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed; however, treatment is associated with increased toxic effects. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00073307 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

[Genotyping and CA4 gene analysis in a Chinese family with retinitis pigmentosa].

OBJECTIVE: To illuminate pathogenic gene and mutation in a Chinese family with autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (adRP). METHODS: Genetic linkage analysis was performed on the known genetic loci for adRP with a panel of polymorphic markers, and then all exons including exon-intron boundary, 5oUTR and 3oUTR of the candidate gene were sequenced directly. RESULTS: Two-point LOD scores were negative with all markers tested except D17S701 (Zmax=2.107, theta=0) and D17S1604 (Zmax=1.806, theta=0). The disease gene locus was confined to RP17 with further genetic linkage and haplotype analysis. Screening all exons including exon-intron boundary, 5oUTR and 3oUTR of carbonic anhydrase 4 (CA4) revealed no mutation in this family. CONCLUSION: The disease-causing gene of one Chinese family with adRP was first mapped to RP17, however no gene mutation of CA4 was detected in this family. Maybe there is a complex CA4 gene mutation in this family or a new disease-causing gene for this family in this locus, further study need to be done.

Novel mutations in the CYP4V2 gene associated with Bietti crystalline corneoretinal dystrophy.

PURPOSE: Bietti crystalline corneoretinal dystrophy (BCD) is an autosomal recessive disorder of retinal degeneration characterized by small glittering crystals in the corneal limbus, posterior pole of the eye, and circulating lymphocytes. Recently mutations in a new gene CYP4V2, encoding a protein belonging to a novel member of the cytochrome P450 family, have been identified as the cause of BCD. To further characterize the role of CYP4V2 in BCD, mutation screening has been undertaken in a cohort of affected patients with BCD from China. METHODS: Eight unrelated families, including 14 patients and 18 unaffected relatives, and 10 sporadic patients were examined clinically. Fifty normal Chinese individuals served as control subjects. Genomic DNA was extracted from venous blood of all participants. The coding region (including the intron-exon boundary) of CYP4V2 was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The PCR products were analyzed using direct sequencing and single strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP). RESULTS: Fundus examination revealed clinical features of BCD with many small, yellowish-sparkling crystals at the posterior pole of the fundus. Sequencing of CYP4V2 identified nine (5 missense, 1 nonsense, 2 deletion, and 1 point A-->G transversion in the splice acceptor site) mutations in 8 families and 9 independent patients. Five of these mutations are novel. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding expands the spectrum of CYP4V2 mutations causing BCD, and further confirms the role of CYP4V2 in the pathogenesis of BCD.

A phase 3 tRial comparing capecitabinE in combination with SorafenIb or pLacebo for treatment of locally advanced or metastatIc HER2-Negative breast CancEr (the RESILIENCE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. A randomized phase 2b screening trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when sorafenib was added to capecitabine versus placebo (median 6.4 versus 4.1 months; hazard ratio = 0.58; P = 0.001). Most drug-related adverse events were Grade 1/2 in severity with the exception of Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction/syndrome (44% versus 14%, respectively). These results suggest a role for the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine in breast cancer and supported a phase 3 confirmatory trial. Here we describe RESILIENCE - a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial - assessing the addition of sorafenib to first- or second-line capecitabine in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligibility criteria include ≥18 years of age, ≤1 prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, and resistant to/failed taxane and anthracycline or no indication for further anthracycline. Prior treatment with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor is not allowed. Patients with significant cardiovascular disease or active brain metastases are not eligible. Patients are stratified by hormone-receptor status, geographic region, and prior metastatic chemotherapy status and randomized (1:1) to capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily (BID), days 1 to 14 of 21) in combination with sorafenib (orally BID, days 1 to 21, total dose 600 mg/day) or matching placebo. Capecitabine and sorafenib/placebo doses can be escalated to 1250 mg/m2 BID and 400 mg BID, respectively, as tolerated, or reduced to manage toxicity. Dose re-escalation after a reduction is allowed for sorafenib/placebo but not for capecitabine. This dosing algorithm was designed to mitigate dermatologic and other toxicity, in addition to detailed guidelines for prophylactic and symptomatic treatment. Radiographic assessment is every 6 weeks for 36 weeks, and every 9 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint is PFS by blinded independent central review (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, time to progression, overall response rate, duration of response, and safety. Enrollment began in November 2010 with a target of approximately 519 patients. DISCUSSION: RESILIENCE will provide definitive PFS data for the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and better characterize the benefit-to-risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01234337.

Biomarkers predicting outcome in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results from sorafenib phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial.

PURPOSE: Plasma proteins [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2), carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1), and Ras p21] and one tumor gene (VHL) were analyzed to identify prognostic biomarkers or indicators of response to sorafenib in a subset of patients enrolled in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Nine hundred three patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were randomized to 400 mg sorafenib twice a day or placebo. Samples collected at baseline and after 3 and 12 weeks were subjected to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. VHL exons were sequenced from tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Baseline biomarker data were available for VEGF (n = 712), sVEGFR-2 (n = 713), CAIX (n = 128), TIMP-1 (n = 123), Ras p21 (n = 125), and VHL mutational status (n = 134). Higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score correlated with elevated baseline VEGF (P < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of VHL mutations (P = 0.008), whereas higher Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) score correlated with elevated VEGF (P < 0.0001), CAIX (P = 0.027), and TIMP-1 (P = 0.0001). Univariable analyses of baseline levels in the placebo cohort identified VEGF (P = 0.0024), CAIX (P = 0.034), TIMP-1 (P = 0.001), and Ras p21 (P = 0.016) as prognostic biomarkers for survival. TIMP-1 remained prognostic for survival in a multivariable analysis model (P = 0.002) that also included ECOG PS, MSKCC score, and the other biomarkers assayed. In the placebo cohort, TIMP-1 (P < 0.001) and Ras p21 (P = 0.048) levels increased at 12 weeks. In the sorafenib cohort, VEGF levels increased at 3 and 12 weeks of treatment (both weeks P < 0.0001), whereas sVEGFR-2 (both weeks P < 0.0001) and TIMP-1 levels (P = 0.002, week 3; P = 0.006, week 12) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: VEGF, CAIX, TIMP-1, and Ras p21 levels were prognostic for survival in RCC patients. Of these, TIMP-1 has emerged as being independently prognostic.

Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial.

PURPOSE: Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.