Design and End Points of Clinical Trials for Patients With Progressive Prostate Cancer and Castrate Levels of Testosterone: Recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group
Top Cited Papers
- 1 March 2008
- journal article
- guideline
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 26 (7), 1148-1159
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.4487
Abstract
Purpose: To update eligibility and outcome measures in trials that evaluate systemic treatment for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone. Methods: A committee of investigators experienced in conducting trials for prostate cancer defined new consensus criteria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emerging trial data. Results: The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2) recommends a two-objective paradigm: (1) controlling, relieving, or eliminating disease manifestations that are present when treatment is initiated and (2) preventing or delaying disease manifestations expected to occur. Prostate cancers progressing despite castrate levels of testosterone are considered castration resistant and not hormone refractory. Eligibility is defined using standard disease assessments to authenticate disease progression, prior treatment, distinct clinical subtypes, and predictive models. Outcomes are reported independently for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, and clinical measures, avoiding grouped categorizations such as complete or partial response. In most trials, early changes in PSA and/or pain are not acted on without other evidence of disease progression, and treatment should be continued for at least 12 weeks to ensure adequate drug exposure. Bone scans are reported as “new lesions” or “no new lesions,” changes in soft-tissue disease assessed by RECIST, and pain using validated scales. Defining eligibility for prevent/delay end points requires attention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group. Conclusion: PCWG2 recommends increasing emphasis on time-to-event end points (ie, failure to progress) as decision aids in proceeding from phase II to phase III trials. Recommendations will evolve as data are generated on the utility of intermediate end points to predict clinical benefit.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Contemporary Prognostic Nomogram for Men with Hormone-Refractory Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A TAX327 Study AnalysisClinical Cancer Research, 2007
- Prostate-Specific Antigen and Pain Surrogacy Analysis in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Setting the Bar in Phase II Trials: The Use of Historical Data for Determining “Go/No Go” Decision for Definitive Phase III TestingClinical Cancer Research, 2007
- Post-therapy changes in PSA as an outcome measure in prostate cancer clinical trialsNature Clinical Practice Oncology, 2006
- The Natural History of Noncastrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer after Radical ProstatectomyEuropean Urology, 2006
- The quantification of PSA mRNA copies in pathologically normal pelvic lymph nodes is a viable prognostic indicatorCancer Biology & Therapy, 2006
- Testosterone and Dihydrotestosterone Tissue Levels in Recurrent Prostate CancerClinical Cancer Research, 2005
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000
- Maximal Androgen Blockade: Final Analysis of EORTC Phase III Trial 30853European Urology, 1998
- Suramin-Induced Decrease in Prostate-Specific Antigen Expression With No Effect on Tumor Growth in the LNCaP Model of Human Prostate CancerJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1996