Search

Despite both the increase in basic biologic knowledge and the fact that many new agents have reached various stages of development during the last 10 years, the number of new treatments that have been approved for patients has not increased as expected. We propose the multi-arm, multi-stage trial design as a way to evaluate treatments faster and more efficiently than current standard trial designs. By using intermediate outcomes and testing a number of new agents (and combinations) simultaneously, the new design requires fewer patients. Three trials using this methodology are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates anticancer cytotoxic agents. Philosophical background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation; Model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment Other aspects of response evaluation.

Summarizes the issues discussed at the workshop 10th National Cancer Institute-European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Symposium on New Drugs in Cancer Therapy held in the United States. Preclinical assessment; Phase I trial design of an anticancer drug; Lessons from nononcology drugs.

Explains the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup's stand that definitions for response and progression of ovarian cancer according to serum CA 125 levels should be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trial protocols for relapse therapy. Definition of response; Rules for calculating CA 125 levels; Recommendation that CA 125 measurements be taken at specific time intervals.

Abstract: The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) task force considered aspects of the design and conduct of phase II studies for molecular targeted agents during their 2007 meeting. The task force recommended that multinomial endpoints and designs should be considered for phase II studies of targeted agents, that both single arm as well as randomised designs remain appropriate in certain settings, and that further assessment of novel endpoints (tumour growth kinetic assessment, biomarker or functional imaging) and designs (randomised discontinuation or Bayesian adaptive design) be encouraged. The MDICT cautioned on the use of small randomised trials which have a number of statistical pitfalls and dangers and strongly encouraged the complete reporting, including negative trials, in the scientific literature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Oncology drug development has seen a paradigm shift in the past decade from traditional cytotoxic agents to molecular targeted therapies. Given the different mechanisms and toxicities of these agents, drug development methodology may also require novel approaches. To address emerging issues in oncology drug development the ‘Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies’ (MDICT) task force was established to provide a forum for academic leaders involved in cancer drug development to discuss methodological issues inherent to the study of targeted anticancer therapy. At the inaugural MDICT meeting in 2006, discussion focused on the most appropriate primary endpoints for first-in-man phase I studies of targeted anticancer agents and organisational issues of such studies. This report summarises the scientific reviews and discussions as well as the recommendations regarding phase I trial design formulated by the MDICT task force. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor in adults, is usually rapidly fatal. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is surgical resection to the extent feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. In this trial we compared radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus temozolomide, given concomitantly with and after radiotherapy, in terms of efficacy and safety. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone (fractionated focal irradiation in daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days per week for 6 weeks, for a total of 60 Gy) or radiotherapy plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day, 7 days per week from the first to the last day of radiotherapy), followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter for 5 days during each 28-day cycle). The primary end point was overall survival. Results: A total of 573 patients from 85 centers underwent randomization. The median age was 56 years, and 84 percent of patients had undergone debulking surgery. At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 12.1 months with radiotherapy alone. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the radiotherapy-plus-temozolomide group was 0.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.75; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The two-year survival rate was 26.5 percent with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 10.4 percent with radiotherapy alone. Concomitant treatment with radiotherapy plus temozolomide resulted in grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in 7 percent of patients. Conclusions: The addition of temozolomide to radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant survival benefit with minimal additional toxicity. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987-96. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]