» Articles » PMID: 20145187

Phase I Oncology Studies: Evidence That in the Era of Targeted Therapies Patients on Lower Doses Do Not Fare Worse

Overview
Journal Clin Cancer Res
Specialty Oncology
Date 2010 Feb 11
PMID 20145187
Citations 56
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To safely assess new drugs, cancer patients in initial cohorts of phase I oncology studies receive low drug doses. Doses are successively increased until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is determined. Because traditional chemotherapy is often more effective near the MTD, ethical concerns have been raised about administration of low drug doses to phase I patients. However, a substantial portion of oncology trials now investigate targeted agents, which may have different dose-response relationships than cytotoxic chemotherapies.

Experimental Design: Twenty-four consecutive trials treating 683 patients between October 1, 2004, and June 30, 2008, at MD Anderson Cancer Center were analyzed. Patients were assigned to a low-dose (<or=25% MTD), medium-dose (25-75% MTD), or high-dose (>or=75% MTD) group, and groups were compared for response rate, time-to-treatment failure, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. To remove negatively biasing data from the high-dose group, in a second analysis, patients treated above the MTD were excluded (high-dose group, 75-100% MTD). Of the 683 patients, 97.7% received targeted agents.

Results: Even when excluding patients above the MTD, there was an early trend favoring the low- versus high-dose group in time-to-treatment failure, with 32.9% versus 25.2% of patients on therapy at 3 months (P = 0.08). In addition, the low-dose group fared at least as well as the other groups in all other outcomes, including response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity.

Conclusions: These data may help alleviate concerns that patients who receive low drug doses on contemporary phase I oncology trials fare worse and suggest targeted agents may have different dose-response relationships than cytotoxic chemotherapies.

Citing Articles

Advancing cancer drug development with mechanistic mathematical modeling: bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Kulesza A, Couty C, Lemarre P, Thalhauser C, Cao Y J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2024; 51(6):581-604.

PMID: 38904912 PMC: 11795844. DOI: 10.1007/s10928-024-09930-x.


Skipping a pillar does not make for strong foundations: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic reasoning behind the shape of dose-response relationships in oncology.

Yates J, Mistry H CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2023; 12(11):1591-1601.

PMID: 37771203 PMC: 10681527. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.13020.


Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials.

Kim Y, Gilbert M, Armstrong T, Celiku O Cancer Med. 2023; 12(16):16945-16957.

PMID: 37421295 PMC: 10501237. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6325.


Dosing of 3 Targeted Agents in Novel Drug Combinations Used at the Precision Medicine Clinic of the University of California San Diego.

Nikanjam M, Tinajero J, McGann M, Li J, Yang J, Shen F J Hematol Oncol Pharm. 2023; 13(1):19-25.

PMID: 36998525 PMC: 10054256.


Challenges, opportunities, and innovative statistical designs for precision oncology trials.

Yin J, Shen S, Shi Q Ann Transl Med. 2022; 10(18):1038.

PMID: 36267789 PMC: 9577796. DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-356.


References
1.
Van Groeningen C, Leyva A, OBrien A, Gall H, Pinedo H . Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (NSC 127716) in cancer patients. Cancer Res. 1986; 46(9):4831-6. View

2.
Bonadonna G, Valagussa P . Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1981; 304(1):10-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198101013040103. View

3.
Horstmann E, McCabe M, Grochow L, Yamamoto S, Rubinstein L, Budd T . Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352(9):895-904. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa042220. View

4.
Daugherty C, Ratain M, GROCHOWSKI E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R . Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13(5):1062-72. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.5.1062. View

5.
Daugherty C . Ethical issues in the development of new agents. Invest New Drugs. 2000; 17(2):145-53. DOI: 10.1023/a:1006371200296. View