Grothey, Axel

Purpose To improve the understanding of the appropriate design of phase II oncology clinical trials, we compared error rates in single-arm, historically controlled and randomized, concurrently controlled designs. Patients and Methods We simulated error rates of both designs separately from individual patient data from a large colorectal cancer phase III trials and statistical models, which take into account random and systematic variation in historical control data. Results In single-arm trials, false-positive error rates (type I error) were 2 to 4 times those projected when modest drift or patient selection effects (eg, 5% absolute shift in control response rate) were included in statistical models. The power of single-arm designs simulated using actual data was highly sensitive to the fraction of patients from treatment centers with high versus low patient volumes, the presence of patient selection effects or temporal drift in response rates, and random small-sample variation in historical controls. Increasing sample size did not correct the over optimism of single-arm studies. Randomized two-arm design conformed to planned error rates. Conclusion Variability in historical control success rates, outcome drifts in patient populations over time, and/or patient selection effects can result in inaccurate false-positive and false-negative error rates in single-arm designs, but leave performance of the randomized two-arm design largely unaffected at the cost of 2 to 4 times the sample size compared with single-arm designs. Given a large enough patient pool, the randomized phase II designs provide a more accurate decision for screening agents before phase III testing.

The treatment options currently available in the medical therapy of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) appear to be an abundance of riches. The integration of oxaliplatin and irinotecan as conventional cytotoxic agents as well as bevacizumab and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab, as novel targeted agents into standard medical therapy have improved median overall survival in metastatic CRC beyond 2 years. It cannot be overemphasized that these significant improvements in outcome of patients with CRC are closely linked to the number of active drugs available to treat this disease. The abundance of treatment options, however, comes with specific challenges for the practical management of palliative medical therapy in advanced CRC, in particular with regard to the utilization of targeted agents. In this context, bevacizumab has established itself as the standard component of first-line chemotherapy. It is of interest for clinical practice that so far no predictive marker for the activity of bevacizumab in metastatic CRC has been identified. The key questions surrounding the use of bevacizumab in the palliative setting are whether its continuation beyond tumor progression provides clinical benefit, and which patient group is at higher risk for bevacizumab-related toxicities. Cetuximab and panitumumab have demonstrated efficacy both in combination with chemotherapy or — in contrast to bevacizumab — as single agent. In unselected patients, the effect of both EGFR antibodies on time-related parameters, progression free survival and overall survival, is moderate at best with emphasis more on the induction of tumor responses in a select group of patients. Therefore, until recently, EGFR antibodies were mainly regarded as salvage therapy options, in particular, since there did not appear to be a loss of activity when used in later lines of therapy. The finding that CRC harboring KRAS (and BRAF) mutations are resistant to EGFR antibodies, has allowed us to enrich the patient population with CRC that have a chance to benefit from cetuximab or panitumumab therapy. Biomarker-based treatment decisions are therefore now an integral part of clinical practice and trial design in CRC. In conclusion, targeted agents have become an integral part of medical therapy for advanced CRC. The challenge for current oncologic practice is to develop a rationale and biomarker-based treatment algorithm utilizing all potentially active agents as individualized therapy.

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.