Advertisement

Cancer clinical trial outcomes: Any progress in tumour-size assessment?

Published:December 10, 2008DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.025

      Abstract

      Cancer for many patients is still a lethal disease, and we are at the edge of the time that it will be the leading cause of death in the western world. One of the hallmarks of cancer is its ability to spread to other organs, turning cancer in essence to a systemic disease. For this reason, systemic therapy plays an important role in our efforts to either obtain cure or to prolong life and palliate symptoms. The ultimate goal in the development of such new treatments is cure or prolongation of life, but the process to ascertain this may be lengthy. This presents a limitation to the rapid assessment of the potential benefit of new cancer treatments, which is why investigators and regulators have been interested in clinical trial measures that could provide early readouts of drug activity or efficacy, in other words for surrogate indicators for the ultimately desired outcome.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Zubrod C.G.
        • Schneiderman S.M.
        • Frei III, E.
        • et al.
        Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thio phosphoamide.
        J Chronic Dis. 1960; 11: 7-33
        • Gehan E.
        • Schneidermann M.
        Historical and methodological developments in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute.
        Stat Med. 1990; 9: 871-880
      1. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization Offset Publication No. 48; 1979.

        • Miller A.B.
        • Hogestraeten B.
        • Staquet M.
        • Winkler A.
        Reporting results of cancer treatment.
        Cancer. 1981; 47: 207-214
        • Therasse P.
        • Arbuck S.G.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • et al.
        New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors.
        J Natl Cancer I. 2000; 92: 205-216
        • Booth C.M.
        • Calvert A.H.
        • Giaccone G.
        • Lobbezoo M.W.
        • Seymour L.K.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT).
        Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44: 19-24
        • Booth C.M.
        • Calvert A.H.
        • Giaccone G.
        • Lobbezoo M.W.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Seymour L.K.
        Design and conduct of phase II studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on methodology for the development of innovative cancer therapies (MDICT).
        Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44: 25-29
        • Ratain M.J.
        • Humphrey R.W.
        • Gordon G.B.
        • et al.
        Recommended changes to oncology clinical trial design: revolution or evolution?.
        Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44: 8-11
        • Ratain M.J.
        • Sargent D.J.
        Optimizing the design of phase II oncology trials: The importance of randomization.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 275-280
        • Dancey J.E.
        • Dodd L.E.
        • Ford R.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomized cancer treatment trials.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 281-289
        • Therasse P.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Verweij J.
        RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment.
        Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42: 1031-1039
        • Galanis E.
        • Buckner J.C.
        • Maurer M.J.
        • et al.
        Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods.
        Neuro Oncol. 2006; 8: 156-165
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Therasse P.
        • Bogaerts J.
        • et al.
        New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-247
        • Bogaerts J.
        • Ford R.
        • Sargent D.
        • et al.
        Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 248-260
        • Schwartz L.H.
        • Bogaerts J.
        • Ford R.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 261-267
        • Ford R.
        • Schwartz L.
        • Dancey J.
        • et al.
        Lessons learned from independent central review.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 268-274
        • Sargent D.J.
        • Rubinstein L.
        • Schwartz L.
        • et al.
        Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trials end-points.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 290-299