Clinical trials, endpoints, and an electronic age

Clinical trials, endpoints, and an electronic age

Don S. Dizon, MD, FACP, FASCO

@drdonsdizon
Feb 04, 2012
Last week I attended the semi-annual meeting of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, the cooperative group focused on trials for gynecologic cancers. Over two days I was engaged in updates of ongoing clinical trials and discussion of new trial concepts for ovarian, cervix, endometrial, and other gynecologic cancers. We learned that we are entering a new era in clinical trials—gone are the days of doing a trial in gynecologic cancer using the "next best drug" because it worked in ____ cancer. No—the onus on investigators is to design new trials based on science. As my mentor and friend, Dr. Carol Aghajanian (chair of the Developmental Therapeutics Committee) put it: "No tissue, no marker, no target—no trial."

During GOG I also found myself considering the endpoints of clinical trials: should it be the response rate? Should it be the proportion of patients who have no tumor growth at six months? Or should it be overall survival? What about quality of life—could this ever be a primary endpoint in clinical trials? What about toxicity as an endpoint? Obviously, the endpoints in a trial depend on the trial itself—phase I studies are geared towards toxicity evaluations, phase II towards effectiveness, and phase III towards survival.

But in the same way that we as investigators need to ask "smarter" questions in the hopes of delivering tailored (i.e., "personalized") therapies, I was left wondering if we should also take a step back and consider the endpoints of our studies. Maybe "overall survival" is not sufficient—maybe it should be clarified by use of quality of life or, in our world of limited resources, cost-effectiveness. Then it occurred to me—maybe the endpoints should not be determined solely by a group of investigators in a conference hall in San Diego. Maybe it's time to have this dialogue with the public—beyond the National Cancer Institute, beyond the American Cancer Society, beyond ASCO. Maybe we should engage the public into a discussion of what endpoint is "meaningful."

When I came home from GOG, I found myself in clinic with a patient who had been diagnosed with recurrent ovarian cancer. She and her son (neither of them in medicine) came to the visit with information pulled off the Web. We ended up having a thoughtful and engaging discussion about completed clinical trials—study designs, patient eligibility, objectives,  and results. Yet, even after reviewing all of this data, I could not answer the question that came next: 

Patient: "That's all great, but what does that all mean to me?" 
ME: "Well, I think you could benefit from treatment as was shown in this trial. It met the endpoint it was designed to address—progression-free survival."
Patient: "But, I want my life to be more than just 'progression-free survival.' I want my life to be about enjoying my family, planting in my garden, going to the beach, not suffering, and being who I am right now. I don't care how 'long' I live—I care about being able to live well."

At that moment I understood the challenge we face in oncology. We are not only being called on to design "smarter" trials. Our patients, living in an electronic age where information is at the fingertips, are calling on us to provide "smarter" answers. 

It's a daunting task, but fortunately, I am surrounded by colleagues locally, nationally, and internationally who are up to the challenge, as am I.

Oh—in case you are wondering how I responded to my patient above—I gave an answer rooted by my fellowship at Memorial Sloan-Kettering and reinforced in my continued commitment to clinical trials, GOG, and ASCO:

"Often no better treatment is available to patients than clinical trials. I'd encourage you to consider this one—"

Disclaimer: 

The ideas and opinions expressed on the ASCO Connection Blogs do not necessarily reflect those of ASCO. None of the information posted on ASCOconnection.org is intended as medical, legal, or business advice, or advice about reimbursement for health care services. The mention of any product, service, company, therapy or physician practice on ASCOconnection.org does not constitute an endorsement of any kind by ASCO. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of the material contained in, posted on, or linked to this site, or any errors or omissions.

Comments

Richard Boulay

Feb, 04 2012 2:39 PM

Don, thanks for bringing this up. This conversation is long overdue in an era of biological agents. Adopting the same endpoints in molecular medicine as we have used in the era of cytotoxic chemotherapy may lead us to erroneous conclusions. For instance, recent reports in NEJM from ICON 7 and GOG on the use of bevucizumab in frontline ovarian carcinoma have shown modest improvement in disease free interval while overall survival may not be increased.
Further teasing out the data shows that shortly after bevacizumab is discontinued, patients tend to recur. Are we using this drug wrong? Are our expectations of improvement in efficacy despite discontinuation of a biological agent too high. I think so. Other biologicals such as gleevac for CML are used indefinitely. Tamoxifen for invasive breast carcinoma is used for 5 years. Why at we using bev differently?
Also your patient is right on target as they usually are. Quality of life absolutely must be considered if we are to think of epithelial ovarian cancer as a chronic disease. This argument leads to only 2 endpoints of such trials: quality of life and progression free survival. Both of these, depending on the marker can be challenging to measure. And furthermore can create very long and expensive trials if drugs like bevucizumab are given until toxicity or progression. So where the conversation ends remains unclear but thanks for getting conversations such as stated.
As we've clearly begun a new era of treatment regimens in Gyn Oncology we owe it to those whom we serve to design trials that will in the end meet their needs of prolonged good quality life.
Rick Boulay MD Director Division of Oncology Lehigh Valley Health Network Allentown, PA

Don S. Dizon, MD, FACP

Feb, 04 2012 9:42 PM

Hi Rick,
Thanks for your thoughts. It's a discussion long overdue, particularly as we walk that balance between efficacy (and defining efficacy) and affordability. I think qualifying our survival endpoints is critical- progression free survival with maintenance of good quality of life may be a more meaningful outcome than overall survival- especially if one's quality of life deteriorated during that time she had left. 
D


Advertisement
Back to Top