Citations

Purpose In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.

Purpose The primary goal of this multicenter phase III trial was to determine whether overall survival (OS) of fluorouracil (FU) -refractory patients was noninferior when treated with second-line infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4; arm B) versus irinotecan (arm A). Cross-over to the other treatment on disease progression was mandated. Patients and Methods Patients who experienced treatment failure with one prior FU-based therapy and had not received prior irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either for metastatic disease or within 6 months of adjuvant FU therapy, were randomly assigned to arm A (irinotecan 350 or 300 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or arm B (FOLFOX4). Results A total of 491 patients were randomly assigned (arm A, n = 245; arm B, n = 246); 288 (59%) had experienced treatment failure with FU for metastatic colorectal cancer. Two hundred twenty-seven patients (46%) received protocol-mandated third-line therapy (arm A, 43%; arm B, 57%). Median survival was 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.0 months) for initial treatment with FOLFOX4 and 14.3 months (95% CI, 12.0 to 15.9 months) for irinotecan (P = .38; hazard ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.1). Response rates (RR; 28% v 15.5%; P = .0009) and time to progression (TTP; 6.2 v 4.4 months; P = .0009) were significantly superior with FOLFOX4. In the nonrandom subset of patients who crossed over, RR and TTP improvements with FOLFOX4 continued into third-line treatment. Irinotecan therapy was associated with more grade 3 nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia; FOLFOX4 was associated with more neutropenia and paresthesias. Conclusion In patients who experienced treatment failure with front-line FU therapy, OS does not significantly differ whether second-line therapy begins with irinotecan or FOLFOX4. FOLFOX4 produces higher RR and longer TTP. Both arms had notable OS in patients who experienced treatment failure with first-line FU therapy.

BackgroundStrokes, vascular risk factors, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype are associated with cognitive decline in the elderly, but definitive evidence that these affect cognition as early as middle age is limited.ObjectiveWe describe the relationships of APOE genotype, stroke, and vascular risk factors with cognitive change over a 14‐year follow‐up in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study cohort recruited while in middle age.MethodsParticipants included a subset of the ARIC Study who underwent assessments of cognitive function and vascular risk factors. Four cognitive assessments were performed between 1990–1992 and 2004–2006. Cognitive assessments included the Delayed Word Recall (DWR) Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS) Test, and the Word Fluency (WF) Test. Vascular risk factors were assessed during the baseline visit in 1990–1992. Incident stroke was recorded over the 14 years of follow‐up.ResultsThere were 1130 participants (mean age, 59 ± 4.3 [SD] years; 62% women; 52% African‐American) with longitudinal data. In multivariate, random‐effects linear models adjusted for age, education, gender, and race, the risk factors diabetes and APOE ɛ4 genotype were independently associated with a decline in performance on the DSS test (both P < .005), whereas hypertension and stroke were not. For DWR, stroke and APOE ɛ4 genotype were independent predictors of decline (both P < .001). For the WF test, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, and stroke were independently associated with decline (all P < .005). No evidence of differential effects of risk factors on cognitive decline by race, gender, or interactions between risk factors was found.ConclusionsThe vascular risk factors diabetes and hypertension, a history of stroke itself, and APOE ɛ4 genotype independently contribute to cognitive decline in late middle age and early elderly years.

Junctophilins (JPHs) are members of a junctional membrane complex protein family important for the physical approximation of plasmalemmal and sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum membranes. As such, JPHs facilitate signal transduction in excitable cells between plasmalemmal voltage-gated calcium channels and intracellular calcium release channels. To determine the molecular evolution of the JPH gene family, we performed a phylogenetic analysis of over 60 JPH genes from over 40 species and compared conservation across species and different isoforms. We found that JPHs are evolutionary highly conserved, in particular the membrane occupation and recognition nexus motifs found in all species. Our data suggest that an ancestral form of JPH arose at the latest in a common metazoan ancestor and that in vertebrates four isoforms arose, probably following two rounds of whole genome duplications. By combining multiple prediction techniques with sequence alignments, we also postulate the presence of new important functional regions and candidate sites for posttranslational modifications. The increasing number of available sequences yields significant insight into the molecular evolution of JPHs. Our analysis is consistent with the emerging concept that JPHs serve dual important functions in excitable cells: structural assembly of junctional membrane complexes and regulation of intracellular calcium signaling pathways.

Abstract Phase II trials are screening trials that seek to identify agents with sufficient activity to continue development and those for which further evaluation should be halted. Although definitive phase III trials use progression-free or overall survival to confirm clinical benefit, earlier endpoints are preferable for phase II trials. Traditionally, tumor shrinkage of a predetermined degree (response) has been used as a surrogate of eventual survival benefit based on the observation that high response rates (RR), and particularly complete responses, in the phase II setting resulted in survival benefit in subsequent phase III trials. Recently, some molecularly targeted agents have shown survival and clinical benefit despite very modest RRs in early clinical trials. These observations provide a major conundrum, with concerns of inappropriate termination of development for active agents with low RRs being balanced by concerns of inactive agents being taken to late-phase development with resultant increases in the failure rate of phase III trials. Numerous alternate or complementary endpoints have been explored, incorporating multinomial endpoints (including progression and response), progression-free survival, biomarkers, and, more recently, evaluation of tumor size as a continuous variable. In this review, we discuss the current status of phase II endpoints and present retrospective analyses of two international gastrointestinal cancer studies showing the potential utility of one novel approach. Alternate endpoints, although promising, require additional evaluation and prospective validation before their use as a primary endpoint for phase II trials.

Abstract As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.