Continuing reassessment of the risks of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are approved for the treatment of anemia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies whose anemia is due to the effect of concomitantly administered chemotherapy. Since the 1993 approval of epoetin alfa in patients with cancer, the risk of thrombovascular events, decreased survival, and poorer tumor control have been increasingly recognized. The risks of ESAs in patients with cancer and the design of trials to assess these risks have been the topic of discussion at two Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committees in 2004 and 2007. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Evaluation of randomized clinical trials comparing use of ESAs to transfusion support alone in patients with active cancer. RESULTS: Six studies (Breast Cancer Erythropoeitin Survival Trial, Evaluation of NeoRecormon on outcome in Head And Neck Cancer in Europe, Danish Head and Neck Cancer, Lymphoid Malignancy, CAN-20, and Anemia of Cancer) investigating ESAs in oncology patients showed decreased survival, decreased duration of locoregional tumor control, and/or increased risk of thrombovascular events. In these six studies, ESA dosing was targeted to achieve and maintain hemoglobin values in excess of current recommendations, and in three of the six studies, ESAs were administered to patients not receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: ESAs increase the risk of thrombovascular events and result in decreased survival and poorer tumor control when administered to achieve hemoglobin levels of > or =12 g/dL in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. No completed or ongoing randomized, controlled trial has addressed safety issues of ESAs in patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia using currently approved dosing regimens in an epidermal tumor type. Additional studies are needed to better characterize these risks.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval: panitumumab for epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma with progression following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-containing chemotherapy regimens.

PURPOSE: To describe the Food and Drug Administration review and marketing approval considerations for panitumumab (Vectibix) for the third-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal carcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Food and Drug Administration reviewed a single, open-label, multicenter trial in which 463 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer who had progressed on or following treatment with a regimen containing a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized (1:1) to receive best supportive care (BSC) with or without panitumumab (6 mg/kg every other week) administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Progression and response were confirmed by an independent review committee masked to treatment assignment. At progression, patients in the BSC-alone arm were eligible to receive panitumumab. RESULTS: Although median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in both treatment arms ( approximately 8 weeks), the mean PFS was approximately 50% longer among patients receiving panitumumab than among those receiving BSC alone (96 versus 60 days, respectively) and the objective response rate in patients receiving panitumumab was 8%. However, no difference in overall survival was shown between the two study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab received accelerated approval based on improvement in PFS and an independently confirmed response rate of 8%, similar to that observed with other active agents at this advanced stage of disease. Confirmation of clinical benefit will be required for full approval.

Good clinical practice and the conduct of clinical studies in pediatric oncology.

This article discusses the principles that guide good clinical practice standards, with particular emphasis on how they to relate to pediatric oncology research and recent efforts at harmonization. The authors review the clinical trials process and the roles of the participants, highlighting the pivotal role of the clinical investigator and the research team, and briefly review the historical aspects of drug development regulations in the United States and the current regulatory paths for pediatric oncology drug development. Where relevant, historical events that underlie many of the regulations and their current applications are described, and practical examples are provided.