throbber
Editorial
`
`Phase II Oncology Trials: Let’s Be Positive
`Mark J. Ratain
`
`The critical decision in drug development is often at the end of
`phase II, as phase III trials are an expensive undertaking, with
`the potential for significant corporate and public consequences
`in the event of a negative phase III trial. Thus, retrospective
`analyses of the usefulness of phase II trials are welcomed and
`valued, as illustrated by the study of Goffin et al. (1). In this
`analysis of 58 cytotoxic drugs, 46 studied in phase II, the
`authors show a statistical relationship between objective
`response rate and probability of approval of the drug, with
`the important exception of responses in metastatic melanoma
`and renal cell carcinoma.
`Most readers will not be surprised by the authors’ findings of
`a relationship between phase II response rate and subsequent
`marketing of the drug. A drug may show activity in a specific
`disease in phase I or II, however, but may not be developed
`further in that disease because of business concerns. Thus, one
`would expect a bias towards phase III trials in diseases with
`larger markets, generally considered to be breast, colorectal,
`lung, and prostate cancers. Therefore, a lower approval rate in
`melanoma and renal cell cancer could potentially be affected by
`a lower number of phase III trials in these indications with
`smaller markets. In fact, Goffin et al. (1) did not address
`whether or not phase III trials were conducted with those
`agents that had phase II response rates of 10% or more. One
`cannot firmly conclude, therefore, that the phase II results were
`not predictive for phase III results in melanoma and renal cell
`cancer, as opposed to an alternative explanation that there was
`relatively little interest in seeking approval for these indications.
`What have we learned from this analysis? It is important to
`emphasize that a correlation, albeit significant, does not
`necessarily result in usefulness. A more important issue is the
`usefulness of phase II oncology trials, particularly in the context
`of predicting marketing approval for the indication studied in
`the specific phase II trial. To address this question, the data of
`Goffin et al. (1) have been reanalyzed using standard
`approaches to studying diagnostic tests. In this context, one
`normally uses metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and
`predictive value (2). To assess this, one can consider various
`objective response rate cutoffs, as illustrated in Table 1, such as
`cutoffs of 10% and 20%. Sensitivity, or true positive rate, is
`defined as the percentage of drugs approved for an indication
`for which the phase II trial exceeded the threshold response
`rate. (It should be noted that if no drugs were approved for an
`
`Author’s Affiliation: Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine,
`Committees on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics and Molecular
`Medicine, and Cancer Research Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
`Received 5/11/05; accepted 5/25/05.
`Requests for reprints: Mark J. Ratain, Department of Medicine, University of
`Chicago, MC2115, 5841 South Maryland Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Phone: 773-
`702-4400; Fax: 773-702-3969; E-mail: mratain@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
`F 2005 American Association for Cancer Research.
`doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1046
`
`is not possible to calculate the sensitivity).
`it
`indication,
`Specificity, or true negative rate, is defined as the percentage
`of drugs not approved for an indication for which the phase II
`trial did not exceed the threshold response rate. Positive
`predictive value is the likelihood of approval (for a disease)
`given a positive phase II trial (i.e., exceeding threshold response
`rate). Negative predictive value is the likelihood of not being
`approved for a disease (regardless of whether a phase III trial
`was conducted) given a negative phase II
`trial (i.e., not
`exceeding threshold response rate).
`When the data of Goffin et al. (1) were reanalyzed in this way
`(Table 1), it is clear that phase II oncology trials have a high
`negative predictive value but a low positive predictive value.
`Sensitivity was high at a threshold response rate of 10%, as this
`would be expected to exclude few active agents. At a higher
`threshold response rate of 20%, there was greater specificity but
`with some tradeoff on sensitivity.
`Is response rate the right end point for phase II oncology
`trials? This paradigm has
`recently been questioned in
`the context of the development of noncytotoxic agents (3).
`The data of Goffin et al. suggest that we should consider
`rejecting our current paradigm for cytotoxic agents as well,
`particularly if the goal of phase II studies is to predict for
`phase III success. Oncology has been recently singled out as a
`therapeutic area for which positive phase II trials have not
`been predictive of phase III success (4). As noted in Table 1,
`the best positive predictive value was for non – small-cell lung
`cancer, in which 75% of agents whose phase II response rate
`exceeded 20% were subsequently approved. Unfortunately,
`this threshold would have excluded two of our currently
`approved cytotoxic agents for non – small-cell lung cancer as
`only three of the five approved agents in this study met this
`criterion.
`Moving forward, it is critical to consider the purpose of phase
`II trials. In essentially all other therapeutic areas, such studies
`are usually randomized, dose-ranging controlled trials, often
`including a placebo group, but enable determination of the
`relationship between dose and an end point of clinical interest,
`and, by extension, provide evidence of activity (5). Most
`importantly, phase III trials are expected to confirm findings of
`phase II studies, and, outside of oncology, are generally
`positive; consequently, phase II trials in other therapeutic areas
`have a high positive predictive value (4, 6). In contrast,
`oncology trials have a high negative predictive value but a
`relatively low positive predictive value (Table 1). These features
`may be due to the nature of cancer and anticancer agents. On
`the other hand, these may be due to the differences in the
`designs used for phase II trials in oncology, in which the classic
`designs are formally aimed at proving that the drug does not
`have activity (7). In fact, a trial that is not negative is not
`necessarily ‘‘positive,’’ as borne out by the low positive
`predictive value for marketing approval, presumably due in a
`large part to the low phase III success rate.
`
`www.aacrjournals.org
`Downloaded from
`
`5661
`Clin Cancer Res 2005;11(16) August 15, 2005
`
`on April 4, 2016. © 2005 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org
`Research.
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2221
`Par. v. Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`
`Editorial
`
`Table 1. Analysis of usefulness of phase II results to predict drug approval within disease category by threshold
`response rate (using data from Goffin et al.)
`
`Melanoma
`(n = 29)
`
`Renal
`(n = 15)
`
`Breast
`(n = 26)
`
`NSCLC
`(n = 25)
`
`Ovarian
`(n = 22)
`
`Colorectal
`(n = 28)
`
`ORR > 10%
`SE (%)
`SP (%)
`PPV (%)
`NPV (%)
`ORR > 20%
`SE (%)
`SP (%)
`PPV (%)
`NPV (%)
`
`?
`84
`0
`100
`
`?
`95
`0
`100
`
`?
`93
`0
`100
`
`?
`93
`0
`100
`
`100
`50
`25
`100
`
`100
`77
`44
`100
`
`80
`70
`40
`93
`
`60
`95
`75
`90
`
`100
`85
`33
`100
`
`67
`80
`33
`80
`
`100
`88
`57
`100
`
`50
`96
`67
`92
`
`Abbreviations: NSCLC, non ^ small-cell lung cancer; ORR, objective response rate; SE, sensitivity; SP, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive
`value.
`
`In addition, classic phase II designs may not identify a highly
`active agent, as exemplified by the recent studies of sorafenib.
`A randomized discontinuation trial of this kinase inhibitor was
`conducted in 202 patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (8).
`Although the objective response rate (by independent review)
`was only 4%, there was an obvious and highly significant
`difference in failure-free survival after randomization, which
`was confirmed in a phase III trial of 800 patients (9). If this
`drug had been developed using classic criteria, it may never
`have entered phase III
`for this indication, given its low
`response rate.
`The solution for moving forward is to design trials for
`success, not for failure. This requires abandonment of current
`oncology paradigms for early clinical trials and adoption of
`generally accepted principles of drug development. These
`principles have been promulgated by the Food and Drug
`
`Administration (10) and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
`Title 21 Section 312.21 (11), which states, ‘‘Phase 2 includes
`the controlled clinical studies conducted to evaluate the
`effectiveness of
`the drug for a particular indication or
`indications in patients with the disease or condition under
`study and to determine the common short-term side effects and
`risks associated with the drug. Phase 2 studies are typically well
`controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a relatively
`small number of patients, usually involving no more than
`several hundred subjects.’’
`Implementation of such new
`paradigms will require greater attention to trial design issues
`in both phase I and II, but with the overriding principle that
`will require larger trials to prove activity. Such change will
`hopefully lead to a higher success rate in phase III, thereby
`allowing a more rapid translation of scientific advances into
`cost-effective therapy for cancer patients.
`
`References
`1. Goffin J, Baral S, Dongsheng T, Nomikos D,
`Seymour L. Objective responses in patients with
`malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clin-
`ical studies do not predict for regulatory approval.
`Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:5928 ^ 34.
`2. Chu K. An introduction to sensitivity, specificity, pre-
`dictive values and likelihood ratios [review]. Emerg
`Med 1999;11:175 ^ 81.
`3. Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern
`drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed,
`too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:
`4442 ^ 5.
`4. Booth B, Glassman R, Ma P. Oncology’s trials. Nat
`Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:609 ^ 10.
`5. Shen L. An improved method of evaluating drug
`
`effect in a multiple dose clinical trial. Stat Med 2001;
`20:1913 ^ 29.
`6. Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical
`drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997;61:
`275 ^ 91.
`7. Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, Siegler M. Statistical
`and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I
`and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl
`Cancer Inst 1993;85:1637 ^ 43.
`8. Ratain M, EisenT, Stadler W, et al. Final findings from
`a phase II, placebo-controlled, randomized discontin-
`uation trial (RDT) of sorafenib (BAY 43 ^ 9006) in
`patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
`Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23:388s.
`9. Onyx Pharmaceuticals [homepage on the Internet].
`
`BAY 43 ^ 9006 shown to delay disease progression
`in phase III study in advanced kidney cancer patients.
`[cited 2005 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.
`onyx-pharm.com/wt/page/pr_1111376865.
`10. Food and Drug Administration [homepage on the
`Internet]. General considerations for the clinical
`evaluation of drugs. [issued 1978]. Available from:
`www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/old034fn.pdf.
`11. US Government Printing Office-NARA[homepage
`on the Internet]. Food and Drug Administration,
`Dept. of Healthy and Human Services, Code of
`Federal Regulations. Investigational new drug
`application. Vol. 21, pp. 54, 2003. Available from:
`http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.
`cgi?title=200021.
`
`5662
`www.aacrjournals.org
`Clin Cancer Res 2005;11(16) August 15, 2005
`on April 4, 2016. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
`clincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
`
`Research.
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2221
`Par. v. Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`
`Phase II Oncology Trials: Let's Be Positive
`(cid:160)
`Mark J. Ratain
`Clin Cancer Res(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`2005;11:5661-5662.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`
`Updated version
`(cid:160)
`
`
`
`Access the most recent version of this article at:
` http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/16/5661
`(cid:160)
`
`Cited articles
`(cid:160)
`Citing articles
`(cid:160)
`
`This article cites 7 articles, 3 of which you can access for free at:
`http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/16/5661.full.html#ref-list-1
`(cid:160)
`This article has been cited by 18 HighWire-hosted articles. Access the articles at:
`
`http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/16/5661.full.html#related-urls
`(cid:160)
`
`
`
`E-mail alerts
`(cid:160)
`Reprints and
`Subscriptions
`(cid:160)
`Permissions
`(cid:160)
`
`Sign up to receive free email-alerts
`
` related to this article or journal.
`
`To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications
`.
`pubs@aacr.org
`Department at
`(cid:160)
`To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, contact the AACR Publications
`.
`permissions@aacr.org
`Department at
`(cid:160)
`
`Downloaded from
`
`on April 4, 2016. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
`clincancerres.aacrjournals.org
`Research.
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2221
`Par. v. Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 3 of 3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket