Wolff, Antonio C.

Abstract Learning Objectives Discuss methods for improving the efficiency of global clinical trials. Explain the need for national regulatory authorities and collaborative cancer groups to initiate efforts to quicken the activation process in their countries. Describe the activation process of phase III studies and its complex and heterogeneous regulation across different geographic and economic regions. Purpose. This study measured the time taken for setting up the different facets of Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization (ALTTO), an international phase III study being conducted in 44 participating countries. Methods. Time to regulatory authority (RA) approval, time to ethics committee/institutional review board (EC/IRB) approval, time from study approval by EC/IRB to first randomized patient, and time from first to last randomized patient were prospectively collected in the ALTTO study. Analyses were conducted by grouping countries into either geographic regions or economic classes as per the World Bank's criteria. Results. South America had a significantly longer time to RA approval (median: 236 days, range: 21–257 days) than Europe (median: 52 days, range: 0–151 days), North America (median: 26 days, range: 22–30 days), and Asia-Pacific (median: 62 days, range: 37–75 days). Upper-middle economies had longer times to RA approval (median: 123 days, range: 21–257 days) than high-income (median: 47 days, range: 0–112 days) and lower-middle income economies (median: 57 days, range: 37–62 days). No significant difference was observed for time to EC/IRB approval across the studied regions (median: 59 days, range 0–174 days). Overall, the median time from EC/IRB approval to first recruited patient was 169 days (range: 26–412 days). Conclusion. This study highlights the long time intervals required to activate a global phase III trial. Collaborative research groups, pharmaceutical industry sponsors, and regulatory authorities should analyze the current system and enter into dialogue for optimizing local policies. This would enable faster access of patients to innovative therapies and enhance the efficiency of clinical research.

Abstract Background We evaluated the safety and efficacy of L+T in pts with 0–2 prior lines of chemotherapy (CT) for HER2+ MBC. In the context of this phase II trial, we evaluated metabolic response by FDG-PET and explored the relationship between metabolic response and clinical outcomes. Methods: Pts with measurable, HER2+ MBC were eligible. Cohort 1: No prior T, L, or CT +T for MBC, and >1 yr from adjuvant T, if received. Cohort 2: 1–2 prior lines of CT for MBC, including T, or relapse within 1 yr of adjuvant T. Pts received L 1,000 mg QD + T (2 mg/kg weekly or 6 mg/kg Q3W). Staging studies were done with CT or MRI at baseline (BL) and every 2 cycles (1 cycle=4 weeks [wks]). Objective response was assessed by local investigator according to RECIST 1.0. FDG-PET/CT was performed at BL, Wk 1, and Wk 8 per NCI guidelines. Central quality assurance, review, and analysis were performed on FDG-PET studies. Up to 5 target lesions were identified on BL FDG-PET images based on hypermetabolic uptake. Percent change in the summed maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of target lesions was calculated at Wk 1 or Wk 8, compared to BL. Metabolic response was assessed according to EORTC criteria for % change in SUVmax (progressive disease [PD]: ≥25% increase; partial response [PR]: ≥25% decrease; stable disease [SD]: <25% change). Metabolic response at Wk 1 was compared to Wk 8 as well as to clinical outcome, including objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 87 pts were registered to the study. Of these, one pt did not begin protocol therapy and one pt did not have MBC on further testing, and are not included. 81/85 pts had FDG-PET data at Wk 1; 75/85 had data at Wk 8. Metabolic PR at Wk 1 was observed in 28/39 (72%) pts in Cohort 1 and 20/42 (48%) pts in Cohort 2. Metabolic PR at Wk 8 was observed in 27/34 (79%) pts in Cohort 1 and 18/41 (44%) pts in Cohort 2. Wk 1 and Wk 8 metabolic responses were similar. In cohort 1, 18/28 (64%) pts who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR had clinical benefit by RECIST. Of pts with Wk 1 metabolic SD, 2/9 (22%) had clinical benefit. In cohort 2, 9/20 (45%) pts who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR had clinical benefit; 5/22 (23%) who achieved Week 1 metabolic SD had clinical benefit. Exploratory analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) showed that pts in Cohort 1 who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR experienced a median PFS of 9.3 months ([mos]; 95% CI 5.6−22.3); for pts with metabolic SD, median PFS was 1.9 mos (95% CI 0.8−5.5). For pts in Cohort 2, Wk 1 metabolic PR was associated with median PFS of 5.6 mos (95% CI 3.7−7.8), whereas for pts with metabolic SD, median PFS was 3.7 mos (95% CI 1.8−5.5). Conclusions: L+T is associated with a high rate of early and sustained metabolic response by FDG-PET. Exploratory analyses suggest that metabolic PR may be associated with clinical benefit and longer PFS. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-07.

Purpose Patient adherence is critical in evaluating the effectiveness of an oral therapy. We sought to measure adherence among women randomly assigned to capecitabine in a preplanned substudy of a multicenter clinical trial. Patients and Methods Cancer and Leukemia Group B study CALGB 49907 was a randomly assigned trial comparing standard chemotherapy versus oral chemotherapy with capecitabine in patients age 65 years or older with early-stage breast cancer. We used microelectronic monitoring system (MEMS) caps on participants' capecitabine bottles to record pill bottle openings. Capecitabine was given in two divided daily doses for 14 consecutive days of a 21-day cycle for six cycles. Adherence was calculated as the number of doses taken divided by doses expected, taking into account toxicity-related dosing changes. A participant was defined as adherent if 80% or more of expected doses were recorded by MEMS. Results Overall, 161 patients were enrolled. Median age was 71 years (range, 65 to 89 years); 124 patients (83%) persisted with capecitabine to completion of planned protocol therapy. Adherence was 78% across all cycles, and adherence did not vary by cycle (P = .32). Twenty-five percent of participants took fewer than 80% of expected doses and were nonadherent. In a logistic regression model, participants with node-negative disease (P = .01) and mastectomy (P = .01) were more likely to be nonadherent. Adherence was not related to age, tumor stage, or hormone receptor status. Adherence was not significantly associated with relapse-free survival or grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Conclusion Most older women with early-stage breast cancer were adherent to short-term oral chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial. Age was not associated with adherence.

Purpose Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG)/Intergroup study 9623 was undertaken to compare treatment with an anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimen followed by high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell support (AHPCS) with a modern dose-dense dose-escalated (nonstandard) regimen including both an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients and Methods Participants in this phase III randomized study had operable breast cancer involving four or more axillary lymph nodes and had completed mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by HDC with AHPCS or to receive sequential dose-dense and dose-escalated chemotherapy with doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide. The primary end point of this study was disease-free survival (DFS). Results Among 536 eligible patients, there was no significant difference between the two arms for DFS or overall survival (OS). Estimated five-year DFS was 80% (95% CI, 76% to 85%) for dose-dense therapy and 75% (95% CI, 69% to 80%) for transplantation. Estimated 5-year OS was 88% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for dose-dense therapy and 84% (95% CI, 79% to 88%) for transplantation. Conclusion There is no evidence that transplantation was superior to dose-dense dose-escalated therapy. Transplantation was associated with an increase in toxicity and a possibly inferior outcome, although the hazard ratios were not significantly different from 1.