Groshen, Susan

Abstract The optimal design of phase II studies continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, especially studies of newer molecularly targeted agents. The observations that many new therapeutics “fail” in definitive phase III studies, coupled with the numbers of new agents to be tested as well as the increasing costs and complexity of clinical trials, further emphasize the critical importance of robust and efficient phase II design. The Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) has published a series of discussion papers on phase II trial design in Clinical Cancer Research. The IDSC has developed formal recommendations about aspects of phase II trial design that are the subject of frequent debate, such as endpoints (response versus progression-free survival), randomization (single-arm designs versus randomization), inclusion of biomarkers, biomarker-based patient enrichment strategies, and statistical design (e.g., two-stage designs versus multiple-group adaptive designs). Although these recommendations in general encourage the use of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, randomization, inclusion of biomarkers, and incorporation of newer designs, we acknowledge that objective response as an endpoint and single-arm designs remain relevant in certain situations. The design of any clinical trial should always be carefully evaluated and justified based on characteristic specific to the situation. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1764–9

Purpose: Preoperative chemotherapy is the conventional primary treatment in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). We investigated the safety and efficacy of primary twice-weekly paclitaxel and concurrent radiation (RT) before modified radical mastectomy followed by adjuvant doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Stage IIB (T3N0) to III LABC patients were eligible. Primary chemoradiation consisted of paclitaxel, 30 mg/m2 delivered intravenously for 1 hour twice weekly for a total of 8 to 10 weeks, and concurrent RT (45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction). Modified radical mastectomy was performed at least 2 weeks after completion of chemoradiation or on recovery of skin toxicity. Postoperatively, patients who responded to paclitaxel and RT received four cycles of doxorubicin/paclitaxel, whereas patients who did not respond received doxorubicin/cytoxan. Results: Forty-four patients were accrued. Toxicity from paclitaxel/RT included grade 3 skin desquamation (7%), hypersensitivity (2%), and stomatitis (2%). Postsurgery complications occurred in six patients (14%). The only grade 4 toxicity of postmastectomy chemotherapy was hematologic (10%). Grade 3 toxicities were leukopenia (24%), infection (22%), peripheral neuropathy (17%), arthralgia and pain (17%), stomatitis (12%), fatigue (10%), esophagitis (5%), and nausea (2%). Overall clinical response rate to preoperative paclitaxel and RT was 91%. Thirty-four percent of patients achieved a pathologic response in the mastectomy specimen: 16% pathologic complete responses (clearance of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary contents) and 18% pathologic partial responses (< 10 residual microscopic foci of invasive breast cancer). Conclusion: Twice-weekly paclitaxel with concurrent RT is a feasible and effective primary treatment for LABC. Future studies should compare primary chemoradiation to chemotherapy in LABC.