Advertisement

Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points

Published:December 17, 2008DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.030

      Abstract

      The success or failure of a clinical trial, of any phase, depends critically on the choice of an appropriate primary end-point. In the setting of phases II and III cancer clinical trials, imaging end-points have historically, and continue presently to play a major role in determining therapeutic efficacy. The primary goal of this paper is to discuss the validation of imaging-based markers as end-points for phase II clinical trials of cancer therapy. Specifically, we outline the issues that must be considered, and the criteria that would need to be satisfied, for an imaging end-point to supplement or potentially replace RECIST- defined tumour status as a phase II clinical trial end-point. The key criteria proposed to judge the utility of a new end-point primarily relate to its ability to accurately and reproducibly predict the eventual phase III end-point for treatment effect, which is usually assessed by a difference between two arms on progression free or overall survival, both at the patient and more importantly at the trial level. As will be demonstrated, the level of evidence required to formally and fully validate a new imaging marker as an appropriate end-point for phase II trials is substantial. In many cases, this level of evidence will only become available by conducting a series of coordinated prospectively designed multicentre clinical trials culminating in a formal meta-analysis. We also include a discussion of situations where flexibility may be required, relative to the ideal rigorous evaluation, to accommodate inevitable real-world feasibility constraints.

      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

        • Kelloff G.J.
        • Krohn K.A.
        • Larson S.M.
        • et al.
        The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11: 7967-7985
        • Kelloff G.J.
        • Hoffman J.M.
        • Johnson B.
        • et al.
        Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11: 2785-2808
        • Richter W.S.
        Imaging biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for drug development.
        Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33: 6-10
        • Miller J.C.
        • Pien H.
        • Sorensen A.G.
        Imaging biomarker applications in oncology drug development.
        Drug Inform J. 2007; 41: 561-572
        • Jaffe C.C.
        Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 3245-3251
        • Shankar L.
        • Menkens A.
        • Sullivan D.
        Molecular imaging in cancer.
        in: Kaufman Howard L. Molecular targeting in oncology (cancer drug discovery and development). Humana Press, 2008: 675-692
        • El-Maraghi R.H.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26 ([Epub 2008 February 19, Review]): 1346-1354
        • Chan J.K.
        • Ueda S.M.
        • Sugiyama V.E.
        • et al.
        Analysis of phase II studies on targeted agents and subsequent phase III trials: what are the predictors for success?.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26 ([Epub 2008 February 19]): 1511-1518
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Ricci S.
        • Mazzaferro V.
        • et al.
        Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
        New Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 378-390
        • Grothey A.
        • Hedrick E.E.
        • Mass R.D.
        • et al.
        Response-independent survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative analysis of N9741 and AVF2107.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 183-189
        • Therasse P.
        • Arbuck S.G.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • et al.
        New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205-216
      1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228–47.

        • Weber W.A.
        Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 3282-3292
        • Van den Abbeele A.D.
        • Badawi R.D.
        Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).
        Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38: S60-S65
        • McShane L.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Sauerbrei W.
        • Taube S.E.
        • Gion M.
        • Clark G.M.
        Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor markers prognostic studies (REMARK).
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 1180-1184
        • Hayes D.F.
        • Bast R.C.
        • Desch C.E.
        • et al.
        Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 1456-1466
        • Ballman K.V.
        • Buckner J.C.
        • Brown P.D.
        • et al.
        The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.
        Neuro Oncol. 2007; 9: 29-38
        • Buyse M.
        • Burzykowski T.
        • Carroll K.
        • et al.
        Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 5218-5224
        • Karrison T.G.
        • Maitland M.L.
        • Stadler W.M.
        • Ratain M.J.
        Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1455-1461
        • Buyse M.
        • Thirion P.
        • Carlson R.W.
        • Burzykowski T.
        • Molenberghs G.
        • Piedbois P.
        Relation between tumor response to first line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 373-378
        • Burzykowski T.
        • Buyse M.
        • Piccart-Gebhart M.J.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 1987-1992
        • Goffin J.
        • Baral S.
        • Tu D.
        • Nomikos D.
        • Seymour L.
        Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval.
        Clin Cancer res. 2005; 11: 5928-5934
        • Benjamin R.S.
        • Choi H.
        • Macapinlac H.A.
        • et al.
        We should resist using RECIST, at least in GIST.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 1760-1764
        • Ratain M.J.
        • Eckhardt S.G.
        Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST.
        J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 4442-4445
        • Ratain M.J.
        Phase II oncology trials: let’s be positive.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11: 5661-5662
        • Fleming T.R.
        • DeMets D.L.
        Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?.
        Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 605-613
        • Byrne M.J.
        • Nowak A.K.
        Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma.
        Ann Oncol. 2004; 15: 257-260
        • Young H.
        • Baur R.
        • Cremerius U.
        • et al.
        Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations.
        Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35: 1773-1782
        • Shankar L.K.
        • Hoffman J.M.
        • Bacharach S.
        • et al.
        Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials.
        J Nucl Med. 2006; 47: 1059-1066
        • O’Connor J.P.
        • Jackson A.
        • Parker G.J.
        • Jayson G.C.
        DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents.
        Brit J Cancer. 2007; 96: 189-195
        • Rosen M.
        • Schnall M.
        Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor vascularity and vascular effects of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13
        • Weber W.A.
        Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome.
        J Nucl Med. 2005; 46: 983-995
        • Langen A.
        • Hoekstra O.S.
        • Dingemans A.
        • et al.
        Response monitoring with positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with bevacizumab and erlotinib: a phase II study.
        Eur J Cancer. 2007; 5
        • Prentice R.L.
        Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria.
        Stat Med. 1989; 8: 431-440
        • Freedman L.S.
        • Graubard B.I.
        • Schatzkin S.
        Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases.
        Stat Med. 1992; 11: 167-178
        • Korn E.L.
        • Albert P.S.
        • McShane L.M.
        Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models.
        Stat Med. 2005; 24: 163-182
        • Buyse M.
        • Molenberghs G.
        Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments.
        Biometrics. 1998; 54: 1014-1029
        • Burzykowski T.
        • Molenberghs G.
        • Buyse M.
        • Geys H.
        • Renard D.
        Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points.
        Appl Stat. 2001; 50: 405-422
        • Burzykowski T.
        • Molenberghs G.
        • Buyse M.
        The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer.
        J Royal Stat Soc A. 2004; 167: 103-124
        • Bruzzi P.
        • Del Mastro L.
        • Sormani M.P.
        • et al.
        Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 5117-5125
        • Sargent D.J.
        • Wieand H.S.
        • Haller D.G.
        • et al.
        Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 8664-8670
        • Sargent D.J.
        • Patiyil S.
        • Yothers G.
        • et al.
        End points for colon cancer adjuvant trials: observations and recommendations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials from the ACCENT group.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 4569-4574
        • Morgan B.
        • Thomas A.L.
        • Drevs J.
        • et al.
        Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for the pharmacological response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: results from two phase I studies.
        J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21 ([Epub 2003 September 29]): 3955-3964
        • Hecht J.R.
        • Trarbach T.
        • Jaeger E.
        • et al.
        A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in patients (Pts) with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum receiving first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and PTK787/ZK 222584 or placebo (CONFIRM-1).
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 3