Targeted Oncology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 65–72 | Cite as

Current challenges for the early clinical development of anticancer drugs in the era of molecularly targeted agents

  • Christophe Le Tourneau
  • Véronique Diéras
  • Patricia Tresca
  • Wulfran Cacheux
  • Xavier Paoletti
Perspectives

Abstract

The emergence of molecularly targeted agents in oncology has not only revolutionized the care of cancer patients, but also changed the daily practice of medical oncologists. Molecularly targeted agents indeed often differ from traditional cytotoxic agents by their administration schedules and routes, their toxicity profiles, and/or the assessment of their antitumor activity. In addition, the observation that molecularly targeted agents sometimes have limited antitumor activity as single agents has led clinical investigators to combine molecularly targeted agents together or with cytotoxic agents. We review here the current challenges for the early clinical development of anticancer agents in the era of molecularly targeted agents. We focus on the choice of end points in phase I oncology clinical trials, as well as on the choice of dose escalation methods with an emphasis on available dose escalation methods for molecularly targeted agents and for combination trials.

Keywords

Phase I trials End points Methodology Molecularly targeted agents Dose escalation methods 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

No funds or benefits in any form have been received by the authors in support of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG (2007) Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol 25:209–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Von Hoff DD (1998) There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs—twenty-first Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Clin Cancer Res 4:1079–1086Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ranson M, Hammond LA, Ferry D et al (2002) ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and active in patients with solid, malignant tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 20:2240–2250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P et al (2005) Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer). Lancet 366:1527–1537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J et al (2005) Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353:123–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R et al (2004) Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 350:2129–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC et al (2004) EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304:1497–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M et al (2004) EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13306–13311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al (2003) Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:976–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL et al (1997) Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol 15:1858–1869PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Strevel EL, Ing DJ, Siu LL (2007) Molecularly targeted oncology therapeutics and prolongation of the QT interval. J Clin Oncol 25:3362–3371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strevel EL, Siu LL (2009) Cardiovascular toxicity of molecularly targeted agents. Eur J Cancer 45(Suppl 1):318–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asnacios A, Naveau S, Perlemuter G (2009) Gastrointestinal toxicities of novel agents in cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer 45(Suppl 1):332–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segaert S, Chiritescu G, Lemmens L et al (2009) Skin toxicities of targeted therapies. Eur J Cancer 45(Suppl 1):295–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carles J, Morales R, Perez JM et al (2009) Management and interpretation of novel toxicities of molecular targeted therapies: renal toxicities. Eur J Cancer 45(Suppl 1):309–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roberts TG Jr, Goulart BH, Squitieri L et al (2004) Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. JAMA 292:2130–2140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L et al (2005) Risks and benefits of phase I oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 352:895–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Postel-Vinay S, Arkenau HT, Olmos D et al (2009) Clinical benefit in Phase-I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: does dose matter? Br J Cancer 100:1373–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Tourneau C, Vidal L, Siu LL (2008) Progress and challenges in the identification of biomarkers for EGFR and VEGFR targeting anticancer agents. Drug Resist Updat 11:99–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ratain MJ, Glassman RH (2007) Biomarkers in phase I oncology trials: signal, noise, or expensive distraction? Clin Cancer Res 13:6545–6548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ et al (2001) Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 344:1031–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Atkins MB, Hidalgo M, Stadler WM et al (2004) Randomized phase II study of multiple dose levels of CCI-779, a novel mammalian target of rapamycin kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced refractory renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 22:909–918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kabbinavar F, Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L et al (2003) Phase II, randomized trial comparing bevacizumab plus fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) with FU/LV alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:60–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sleijfer S, Wiemer E (2008) Dose selection in phase I studies: why we should always go for the top. J Clin Oncol 26:1576–1578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goulart BH, Clark JW, Pien HH et al (2007) Trends in the use and role of biomarkers in phase I oncology trials. Clin Cancer Res 13:6719–6726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sauter G, Lee J, Bartlett JM et al (2009) Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol 27:1323–1333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR et al (2009) American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol 27:2091–2096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandrekar SJ, Sargent DJ (2009) Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J Clin Oncol 27:4027–4034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parulekar WR, Eisenhauer EA (2004) Phase I trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: theory and practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:990–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL (2009) Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:708–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gordon MS, Margolin K, Talpaz M et al (2001) Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of recombinant human anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:843–850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takimoto CH (2009) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic biomarkers in early oncology drug development. Eur J Cancer 45(Suppl 1):436–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Adjei AA (2006) What is the right dose? The elusive optimal biologic dose in phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 24:4054–4055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Booth CM, Calvert AH, Giaccone G et al (2008) Endpoints and other considerations in phase I studies of targeted anticancer therapy: recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT). Eur J Cancer 44:19–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Graham MA, Workman P (1992) The impact of pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation strategies in phase I clinical trials: critical evaluation and recommendations for future studies. Ann Oncol 3:339–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL et al (2006) Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol 24:4479–4484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nurgat ZA, Craig W, Campbell NC et al (2005) Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 92:1001–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E et al (1995) Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 13:1062–1072PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hamberg P, Verweij J (2009) Phase I drug combination trial design: walking the Ttightrope. J Clin Oncol 27:4441–4443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haddad RI, Tishler RB, Norris C et al (2009) Phase I study of C-TPF in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 27:4448–4453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arkenau HT, Olmos D, Ang JE et al (2008) Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for patients treated within the context of a phase I study: the Royal Marsden Hospital experience. Br J Cancer 98:1029–1033CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Italiano A, Massard C, Bahleda R et al (2008) Treatment outcome and survival in participants of phase I oncology trials carried out from 2003 to 2006 at Institut Gustave Roussy. Ann Oncol 19:787–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA et al (2009) Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med 361:123–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Von Hoff DD, LoRusso PM, Rudin CM et al (2009) Inhibition of the hedgehog pathway in advanced basal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 361:1164–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dong M, Ning Z, Newman MJ et al (2009) Phase I study of chidamide (CS055/HBI-8000), a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 27:15s, abstract 3529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dent SF, Eisenhauer EA (1996) Phase I trial design: are new methodologies being put into practice? Ann Oncol 7:561–566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eisenhauer EA, O’Dwyer PJ, Christian M et al (2000) Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol 18:684–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rogatko A, Schoeneck D, Jonas W et al (2007) Translation of innovative designs into phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 25:4982–4986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simon R, Freidlin B, Rubinstein L et al (1997) Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1138–1147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Collins JM, Grieshaber CK, Chabner BA (1990) Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1321–1326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    O’Quigley J, Pepe M, Fisher L (1990) Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46:33–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Babb J, Rogatko A, Zacks S (1998) Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Stat Med 17:1103–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Friedman HS, Kokkinakis DM, Pluda J et al (1998) Phase I trial of O6-benzylguanine for patients undergoing surgery for malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 16:3570–3575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hunsberger S, Rubinstein LV, Dancey J et al (2005) Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint. Stat Med 24:2171–2181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Polley MY, Cheung YK (2008) Two-stage designs for dose-finding trials with a biologic endpoint using stepwise tests. Biometrics 64:232–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang W, Sargent DJ, Mandrekar S (2006) An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 25:2365–2383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Thall PF, Cook JD (2004) Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 60:684–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mandrekar SJ, Cui Y, Sargent DJ (2007) An adaptive phase I design for identifying a biologically optimal dose for dual agent drug combinations. Stat Med 26:2317–2330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yin G, Li Y, Ji Y (2006) Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics 62:777–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thall PF, Millikan RE, Mueller P et al (2003) Dose-finding with two agents in Phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 59:487–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Huang X, Biswas S, Oki Y et al (2007) A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies. Biometrics 63:429–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yuan Y, Yin G (2008) Sequential continual reassessment method for two-dimensional dose finding. Stat Med 27:5664–5678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yin G, Yuan YA (2009) Latent contingency table approach to dose finding for combinations of two agents. Biometrics 65:866–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Houede N, Thall PF, Nguyen H et al (2009) Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials. Biometrics. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01302.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cannistra SA (2008) Challenges and pitfalls of combining targeted agents in phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 26:3665–3667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Le Tourneau
    • 1
  • Véronique Diéras
    • 1
  • Patricia Tresca
    • 1
  • Wulfran Cacheux
    • 1
  • Xavier Paoletti
    • 2
  1. 1.Département d’oncologie médicaleInstitut CurieParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Département d’épidémiologie et de biostatistiquesInstitut CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations