Michaele C. Christian

Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.

An analysis of the activity of compounds tested in pre-clinical in vivo and in vitro assays by the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program was performed. For 39 agents with both xenograft data and Phase II clinical trials results available, in vivo activity in a particular histology in a tumour model did not closely correlate with activity in the same human cancer histology, casting doubt on the correspondence of the pre-clinical models to clinical results. However, for compounds with in vivo activity in at least one-third of tested xenograft models, there was correlation with ultimate activity in at least some Phase II trials. Thus, an efficient means of predicting activity in vivo models remains desirable for compounds with anti-proliferative activity in vitro. For 564 compounds tested in the hollow fibre assay which were also tested against in vivo tumour models, the likelihood of finding xenograft activity in at least one-third of the in vivo models tested rose with increasing intraperitoneal hollow fibre activity, from 8% for all compounds tested to 20% in agents with evidence of response in more than 6 intraperitoneal fibres (P< 0.0001). Intraperitoneal hollow fibre activity was also found to be a better predictor of xenograft activity than either subcutaneous hollow fibre activity or intraperitoneal plus subcutaneous activity combined. Since hollow fibre activity was a useful indicator of potential in vivo response, correlates with hollow fibre activity were examined for 2304 compounds tested in both the NCI 60 cell line in vitro cancer drug screen and hollow fibre assay. A positive correlation was found for histologic selectivity between in vitro and hollow fibre responses. The most striking correlation was between potency in the 60 cell line screen and hollow fibre activity; 56% of compounds with mean 50% growth inhibition below 10(-7.5) M were active in more than 6 intraperitoneal fibres whereas only 4% of compounds with a potency of 10(-4) M achieved the same level of hollow fibre activity (P< 0.0001). Structural parameters of the drugs analysed included compound molecular weight and hydrogen-bonding factors, both of which were found to be predictive of hollow fibre activity.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients in phase I clinical trials are treated at doses of chemotherapeutic agents that are below the biologically active level, thus reducing their chances for therapeutic benefit. Current phase I trials often take a long time to complete and provide little information about interpatient variability or cumulative toxicity. PURPOSE: Our objective was to develop alternative designs for phase I trials so that fewer patients are treated at subtherapeutic dose levels, trials are of reduced duration, and important information (i.e., cumulative toxicity and maximum tolerated dose) needed to plan phase II trials is obtained. METHODS: We fit a stochastic model to data from 20 phase I trials involving the study of nine different drugs. We then simulated new data from the model with the parameters estimated from the actual trials and evaluated the performance of alternative phase I designs on this simulated data. Four designs were evaluated. Design 1 was a conventional design (similar to the commonly used modified Fibonacci method) using cohorts of three to six patients, with 40% dose-step increments and no intrapatient dose escalation. Designs 2 through 4 included only one patient per cohort until one patient experienced dose-limiting toxic effects or two patients experienced grade 2 toxic effects (during their first course of treatment for designs 2 and 3 or during any course of treatment for design 4). Designs 3 and 4 used 100% dose steps during this initial accelerated phase. After the initial accelerated phase, designs 2 through 4 resorted to standard cohorts of three to six patients, with 40% dose-step increments. Designs 2 through 4 used intrapatient dose escalation if the worst toxicity is grade 0-1 in the previous course for that patient. RESULTS: Only three of the actual trials demonstrated cumulative toxic effects of the chemotherapeutic agents in patients. The average number of patients required for a phase I trial was reduced from 39.9 for design 1 to 24.4, 20.7, and 21.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients who would be expected to have grade 0-1 toxicity as their worst toxicity over three cycles of treatment is 23.3 for design 1, but only 7.9, 3.9, and 4.8 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients with grade 3 toxicity as their worst toxicity increases from 5.5 for design 1 to 6.2, 6.8, and 6.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The average number of patients with grade 4 toxicity as their worst toxicity increases from 1.9 for design 1 to 3.0, 4.3, and 3.2 for designs 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: Accelerated titration (i.e., rapid intrapatient drug dose escalation) designs appear to effectively reduce the number of patients who are under-treated, speed the completion of phase I trials, and provide a substantial increase in the information obtained.

PURPOSE: We chose to examine the impact of socioeconomic factors on accrual to National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored cancer treatment trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We estimated the geographic and demographic cancer burden in the United States and then identified 24,332 patients accrued to NCI-sponsored cancer treatment trials during a 12-month period. Next, we examined accrual by age, sex, geographic residence, health insurance status, health maintenance organization market penetration, several proxy measures of socioeconomic status, the availability of an oncologist, and the presence of a hospital with an approved multidisciplinary cancer program. RESULTS: Pediatric patients were accrued to clinical trials at high levels, whereas after adolescence, only a small percentage of cancer patients were enrolled onto clinical trials. There were few differences by sex. Black males as well as Asian-American and Hispanic adults were accrued to clinical trials at lower rates than white cancer patients of the same age. Overall, the highest observed accrual was in suburban counties. Compared with the United States population, patients enrolled onto clinical trials were significantly less likely to be uninsured and more like to have Medicare health insurance. Geographic areas with higher socioeconomic levels had higher levels of clinical trial accruals. The number of oncologists and the presence of approved cancer programs both were significantly associated with increased accrual to clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We must work to increase the number of adults who enroll onto trials, especially among the elderly. Ongoing partnership with professional societies may be an effective approach to strengthen accrual to clinical trials.