Although improved survival is the "gold standard" for proving clinical benefit of oncologic therapy, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted significant results in clinical trials using surrogate endpoints as the basis for drug approval. One surrogate is the amount of tumor reduction, or tumor response. Although tumor shrinkage would seem to be a necessary precondition for improved survival, clinical studies of a variety of oncologic agents have not consistently demonstrated a correlation between the two in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Moreover, tumor response may not be an appropriate endpoint for evaluating the effects of the new targeted therapies, whose putative mechanisms are generally cytostatic rather than cytotoxic. Clinical trials suggest that some patients with other solid tumors, such as lung cancer, may derive clinical benefit from treatment that helps stabilize their disease. There is also controversy as to whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) provides the most appropriate instrument for assessing tumor burden. Ultimately, use of a variety of endpoints as well as different trial designs may provide an adequate basis for investigating the benefits/risks of newer therapies.
In clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of oncology drugs, improved survival has been the "gold standard" accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for establishing clinical benefit. Yet survival itself is not an ideal endpoint for clinical trials because it necessitates designing large, long studies; may be affected by crossover therapy; does not capture symptom improvement; and may include noncancer deaths. Thus, over the past decade, clinical trials of oncologic therapies have used surrogate endpoints which, by reducing the duration and size of the trials, facilitate accelerated approval. Tumor shrinkage is a logical endpoint, since advancing tumor burden is the predominant mechanism by which the disease causes morbidity and mortality.
Objective response rate (ORR) has been considered a measure of drug antitumor activity, even in single-agent studies. There are several reasons that ORR has been widely used as an endpoint. First, tumor shrinkage is likely to be attributable to a direct effect of the agent under investigation. Second, tumor response has been widely accepted as a means of guiding cancer treatment. Finally, ORR would seem to be likely to predict clinical benefit, assuming the response rate (RR) is high enough and the responses are of sufficient duration.
Despite its logical appeal, reduction in tumor burden has proven to be a controversial endpoint. Typically, many recent trials have assessed tumor response using the recently developed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). These criteria are derived from a retrospective analysis of measurements obtained from eight clinical trials in which patients were assessed for tumor response. To simplify tumor assessment, RECIST uses unidimensional measurement of the longest diameter of a tumor. Such measurements have reportedly underestimated response to chemotherapy in pleural-based masses, such as malignant pleural mesothelioma,[3,4] tumors with significant surrounding fibrosis, and other tumors, especially in light of current imaging technologies and multimodality approaches. The limitations of this unidimensional approach are illustrated in Figure 1.
In addition, tumor response may underestimate treatment effects on clinical endpoints, including survival, by failing to reflect the magnitude, breadth, and duration of effects on tumor burden. Alternatively, tumor response can overestimate impact on survival if the response is brief or if it does not capture unintended harmful mechanisms of action of the tested treatment. The question of whether ORR correlates with overall survival (OS) and, thus, whether it is an appropriate endpoint is still open to significant debate.
A number of factors influence the effect of tumor response on OS in randomized clinical trials. One obvious consideration is the magnitude of the response difference between arms. For example, a 20% response in one treatment arm and 10% in the other may be clinically significant, but in a small trial the difference will not translate into a significant OS benefit. Quality of response is also important: complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) may all impact survival differently. The durability of response, which sometimes is overlooked, obviously can affect progression-free survival (PFS) or OS. Durability of response must be evaluated in the context of the rate of disease progression for the specific disease. With renal cell cancer (RCC), for example, tumors classified as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk according to the Sloan-Kettering classification system progress at different rates. Thus, a brief response in patients whose disease progresses slowly may not necessarily affect PFS or OS. In contrast, with a rapidly progressing tumor, a large number of responses (even if relatively brief) may influence PFS.
Finally, in assessing whether tumor response influences OS or PFS in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), an important consideration is the type of comparator arms. A study that compares active drug with placebo or observation will yield different information from studies that compare two drugs with similar mechanisms of action or two drugs with markedly different mechanisms of action. Single-arm studies have occasionally provided the basis for FDA approval when no effective therapy is available and spontaneous tumor regressions are rare. In contrast, trials using historical controls have rarely been successful unless the survival outcomes differ markedly in the active comparator arm.
Following is an overview of the efficacy and limitations of using tumor response as an endpoint in key clinical studies of various agents used to treat renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors.
Dr. Gollob is a consultant for and serves on the speakers bureau of Chiron Corporation. Dr. Bonomi receives research funding from and is on the speakers bureau of Genentech, OSI, and Astra Zeneca.
1. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry: Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; April, 2005.
2. Padhani AR: The RECIST criteria: Implications for diagnostic radiologists. Br J Radiol 74:983-986, 2001.
3. Monetti F, Casanova S, Grasso A, et al: Inadequacy of the new Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: Report of four cases. Lung Cancer 43(1):71-4, 2004.
4. van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JG, de Bruin H, et al: Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for response evaluation in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 43(1):63-9, 2004.
5. Husband JE, Schwartz LH, Spencer J, et al: Evaluation of the response to treatment of solid tumours-a consensus statement of the International Cancer Imaging Society. Br J Cancer 90(12):2256-2260, 2004.
6. Fleming TR: Objective response rate as a surrogate end point: A commentary. J Clin Oncol 23:4845-4846, 2005.
7. Fisher RI, Rosenberg SA, Sznol M, et al: High-dose aldesleukin in renal cell carcinoma: Long-term survival update. Cancer J Sci Am 3:S70-S72, 1997.
8. Eklund JW, Kuzel TM: Interleukin-2 in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma and malignant melanoma. Cancer Treat Res 126:263-87, 2005.
9. Sternberg CN: Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments. Drugs Today (Barc) 3(suppl C):39-59, 2003.
10. Motzer RJ, Russo P: Systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 163(2):408-417, 2000.
11. Atkins MB, Lotze MT, Dutcher JP, et al: High-dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: Analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993. J Clin Oncol 17:2105-2116, 1999.
12. Pyrhonen S, Salminen E, Ruutu M, et al: Prospective randomized trial of interferon alfa-2a plus vinblastine versus vinblastine alone in patients with advanced renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2859-2867, 1999.
13. Medical Research Council Renal Cancer Collaborators: Interferon-alpha and survival in metastatic renal carcinoma: Early results of a randomised controlled trial. Medical Research Council Renal Cancer Collaborators. Lancet 353:14-17, 1999.
14. Negrier S, Escudier B, Lasset C, et al: Recombinant human interleukin-2, recombinant human interferon alpha-2A, or both in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie. N Engl J Med 338:1272-1278, 1988.
15. Yang JC, Sherry RM, Steinberg SM, et al: Randomized study of high-dose and low-dose interleukin-2 in patients with metastatic renal cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:3127-3132, 2003.
16. McDermott DF, Regan MM, Clark JI, et al: Randomized phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 23:133-141, 2005.
17. Rini BI, Vogelzang NJ, Dumas MC, et al: Phase II trial of weekly intravenous gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2419-2426, 2000.
18. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346(2):92-98, 2002.
19. Eton O, Legha SS, Bedikian AY, et al: Sequential biochemotherapy versus chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma: Results from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 20:2045-2052, 2002.
20. Atkins MB, Lee S, Flaherty LE, et al: A prospective randomized phase III trial of concurrent biochemotherapy (BCT) with cisplatin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (CVD), IL-2 and interferon alpha-2b (IFN) versus CVD alone in patients with metastatic melanoma (E3695): An ECOG-coordinated Intergroup trial (abstract 2847). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:708, 2003.
21. Del Vecchio M, Bajetta E, Vitali M, et al: Multicenter phase III randomized trial of cisplatin, vindesine and dacarbazine (CVD) versus CVD plus subcutaneous (sc) interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon-alpha-2b (IFN) in metastatic melanoma patients (pts) (abstract 2849). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:709, 2003.
22. Keilholz U, Punt CJ, Gore M, et al: Dacarbazine, cisplatin and IFN-α2b with or without IL-2 in advanced melanoma: Final analysis of EORTC randomized phase III trial 18951 (abstract 2848). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:708, 2003.
23. Atkins MB, O'Boyle KR, Sosman JA, et al: Multi-institutional phase II trial of intensive combination chemoimmunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 12:1553-1560, 1994.
24. Mitchell MS: Relapse in the central nervous system in melanoma patients successfully treated with biomodulators. J Clin Oncol 7:1701-1709, 1989.
25. McDermott DF, Mier JW, Lawrence DP, et al: A phase II pilot trial of concurrent biochemotherapy with cisplatin, vinblastine, dacarbazine, interleukin 2, and interferon alpha-2B in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 6:2201-2208, 2000.
26. Pavlick AC, Adams S, Fink MA, et al: Novel therapeutic agents under investigation for malignant melanoma. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 12:1545-1558, 2003.
27. Tarhini AA, Agarwala SS: Cutaneous melanoma: Available therapy for metastatic disease. Dermatol Ther 19:19-25, 2006.
28. Bonomi PD, Finkelstein DM, Ruckdeschel JC, et al: Combination chemotherapy versus single agents followed by combination chemotherapy in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: A study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 7(11):1602-1613, 1989.
29. Bunn PA Jr: Chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Who, what, when, why? J Clin Oncol 20(18 suppl):23S-33S, 2002.
30. Sederholm C, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, et al: Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: The Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 23:8380-8388, 2005.
31. Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, et al: Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:122-130, 2000.
32. Bruzzi P, Del Mastro L, Sormani MP, et al: Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23:5117-5125, 2005.
33. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al, for the Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer: Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 356:373-378, 2000.
34. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G, et al: Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (The IDEAL 1 Trial). J Clin Oncol 21:2237-2246, 2003.
35. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, et al: Efficacy of gefitinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, in symptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA 290:2149-2158, 2003.
36. Perez-Soler R: Phase II clinical trial data with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (OSI-774) in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 6(suppl 1):S20-S23, 2004.
37. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al: Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353:123-32, 2005.
38. Giaccone G: Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:3235-3242, 2005.
39. Janne PA, Engelman JA, Johnson BE: Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: Implications for treatment and tumor biology. J Clin Oncol 23:3227-3234, 2005.
40. Stephens P, Hunter C, Bignell G, et al: Lung cancer: Intragenic ERBB2 kinase mutations in tumours. Nature 431:525-526, 2004.
41. Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial-INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 22:777-784, 2004.
42. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, et al: Randomized phase II trial comparing bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2184-2191, 2004.
43. Sandler AB, Gray R, Brahmer J, et al: Randomized phase II/III trial of paclitaxel (P) plus carboplatin (C) with or without bevacizumab (NSC # 704865) in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Trial - E4599 (abstract 4). J Clin Oncol 23(16s, part I):2s, 2005.
44. Miller KD, Wang M, Gralow J, et al: E2100: A randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (abstract). ASCO Educational Session (Late-Breaking Session). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005.
45. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al: Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335-2342, 2004.
46. Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al: Phase II, placebo-controlled, randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24(16), 2006. In press.
47. Bernstein K: Rethinking cancer trials. The Bernstein Report on BioBusiness, pp 1-9. July 11, 2005.
48. Escudier B, Szczylik C, Eisen T, et al: Randomized phase III trial of the Raf kinase and VEGFR inhibitor sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (abstract 4510). J Clin Oncol 23(16s, part I):380s, 2005.
49. Escudier B, Szczylik C, Eisen T, et al: Randomized phase III trial of the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (abstract 794). Eur J Cancer 3(suppl 2):226, 2005.
50. Fleming TR: Surrogate endpoints and the FDA's accelerated approval process: The challenges are greater than they seem. Health Affairs 24:67-78, 2005.