PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16783564

Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques.

Abstract

Response evaluation by means of response rates using radiological imaging techniques is well established and plays a pivotal role in the development of new anti-cancer agents. It is typically employed in phase II clinical trials and acts as a surrogate for patient benefit, thereby allowing potentially active agents to be fast tracked; at the same time, inactive agents can be discarded earlier, with fewer patients being exposed to them. Response evaluation has evolved over the past 25 years, and various imaging stipulations have been introduced to try and add some uniformity to the process and enable a comparison to be made between different studies. However, imaging still requires a well-defined anatomical lesion or lesions to be viewed and relies on the measurement of a reduction in tumour size during treatment as the basis for presumed clinical benefit. This implies a cytocidal mode of action of the agent under review, but over the past 5 years increasing numbers of new cytostatic agents have been developed, such as anti-angiogenesis agents and specific enzyme receptor antagonists, where the overall effect is to prevent new tumour cells from growing or developing rather than directly killing pre-existing tumour cells. Anatomical imaging alone is therefore inappropriate as the tumour would not necessarily be expected to reduce in size. Other surrogates of tumour growth and metabolism have to be utilised. Functional studies are therefore necessary; anatomical imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging can be modified so that dynamic studies can be undertaken, and newer techniques such as positron emission tomography scanning can be employed. The latter has poor spatial resolution but when combined with CT it has the ability to measure function while the anatomical site is accurately determined. The aim now is to devise new response evaluation techniques and criteria incorporating functional imaging to enable accurate assessment of active new anti-cancer agents.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S J Gwyther. 2006. Current standards for response evaluation by imaging techniques.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0130-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Stochastically curtailed phase II clinical trials.

Phase II trials often test the null hypothesis H(0): p or=p(1), where p is the true unknown proportion responding to the new treatment, p(0) is the greatest response proportion which is deemed clinically ineffective, and p(1) is the smallest response proportion which is deemed clinically effective. In order to expose the fewest number of patients to an ineffective therapy, phase II clinical trials should terminate early when the trial fails to produce sufficient evidence of therapeutic activity (i.e. if p or=p(1)), the trial should declare the drug effective in the fewest patients possible to allow for advancement to a phase III comparative trial. Several statistical designs, including Simon's minimax and optimal designs, have been developed that meet these requirements. In this paper, we propose three alternative designs that rely upon stochastic curtailment based on conditional power. We compare and contrast the properties of the three approaches: (1) stochastically curtailed (SC) binomial tests, (2) stochastically curtailed (SC) Simon's optimal design, and (3) SC Simon's minimax design to those of Simon's minimax and Simon's optimal designs. For each of these designs we compare and contrast the number of opportunities for study termination, the expected sample size of the trial under the null hypothesis (p <or=p(0)), and the effective type I and type II errors. We also present graphical tools for monitoring phase II clinical trials with stochastic curtailment using conditional power.

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic↗

Adaptive two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials.

Two-stage designs have been widely used in phase II clinical trials. Such designs are desirable because they allow a decision to be made on whether a treatment is effective or not after the accumulation of the data at the end of each stage. Optimal fixed two-stage designs, where the sample size at each stage is fixed in advance, were proposed by Simon when the primary outcome is a binary response. This paper proposes an adaptive two-stage design which allows the sample size at the second stage to depend on the results at the first stage. Using a Bayesian decision-theoretic construct, we derive optimal adaptive two-stage designs; the optimality criterion being minimum expected sample size under the null hypothesis. Comparisons are made between Simon's two-stage fixed design and the new design with respect to this optimality criterion.

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic↗