This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Carter, S. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Carter, S. K.

Clinical Strategy for the Development of Angiogenesis Inhibitors

SUGEN, Inc., South San Francisco, California

Correspondence: Stephen K. Carter, M.D., 156 Pleasant Valley Road, Titusville, New Jersey 05068, USA. Telephone: 609-737-7104; Fax: 609-730-1951; e-mail: star-wescott{at}sugen.com

Angiogenesis inhibitors differ from conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy agents by targeting normal cells rather than tumor cells, which may contain multiple mutations. Because of this, the traditional strategy used in clinical development of cytotoxic agents may not be appropriate for these novel agents. Many clinical studies are now evaluating these agents with a new approach, referred to as the cytostatic paradigm. The cornerstone of the cytostatic paradigm is the use of time to progression (TTP) of disease as the decision-making criterion for "go/no go" in the early phases of clinical development. However, the use of TTP as the main criterion for clinical trials is complicated for a variety of reasons, including: A) the lack of standardized criteria accepted by regulatory authorities; B) the heterogeneity of the historical database, and C) the larger number of patients needed for the "go/no go" decision-making process. In addition, clinical trials of cytotoxic agents have traditionally used objective response (despite the controversy regarding objective response as a surrogate for clinical activity) as the main criterion for determining whether the results of phase II studies justify the pivotal phase III studies.

Another aspect of the clinical development strategy is combining angiogenesis inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The rationale for combination of angiogenesis inhibitors with cytotoxic agents is based on: A) different targets for these agents; B) lack of cross-resistance patterns; C) lack of myelosuppression with angiogenesis inhibitors allows administration of full doses of all agents, and D) the assumption that combining these agents will result in additive antitumor activity. Combination therapy with angiogenesis inhibitors may be attractive to both clinicians and their patients because it allows cytostatic agents to be used upfront in treatment while contributing to drug registration strategy (cytostatic/cytotoxic combination therapy versus cytotoxic therapy).

The clinical development of the angiogenesis inhibitor SU5416, a small molecule inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, is currently ongoing. In phase I trials, SU5416 demonstrated activity in both colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Based on these encouraging results, phase III studies to evaluate combination of SU5416 with established cytotoxic therapy are planned. These studies will include an interim analysis, the equivalent of a phase II evaluation of clinical activity. If successful, this strategic approach will save significant time in the clinical development process.

Key Words. Angiogenesis • Cytostatic agents • Cytotoxic agents • Clinical study design

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. J. Shih Go/No-Go Decisions from Phase II to Phase III Clinical Trials Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 12, 2008; 2008(1): 217 - 221. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P.M. Dings, M. Loren, H. Heun, E. McNiel, A. W. Griffioen, K. H. Mayo, and R. J. Griffin Scheduling of Radiation with Angiogenesis Inhibitors Anginex and Avastin Improves Therapeutic Outcome via Vessel Normalization Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2007; 13(11): 3395 - 3402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Slichenmyer Clinical Trial Strategies to Facilitate the Transition to Registration-Directed Trials Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 1, 2005; 2005(1): 297 - 302. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Wong and A. J. Van der Kogel MECHANISMS OF RADIATION INJURY TO THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM: IMPLICATIONS FOR NEUROPROTECTION Mol. Interv., October 1, 2004; 4(5): 273 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. G. Roberts Jr, T. J. Lynch Jr, and B. A. Chabner The Phase III Trial in the Era of Targeted Therapy: Unraveling the "Go or No Go" Decision J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2003; 21(19): 3683 - 3695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Stopeck, M. Sheldon, M. Vahedian, G. Cropp, R. Gosalia, and A. Hannah Results of a Phase I Dose-escalating Study of the Antiangiogenic Agent, SU5416, in Patients with Advanced Malignancies Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2002; 8(9): 2798 - 2805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C.S. Brock and S.M. Lee Anti-angiogenic strategies and vascular targeting in the treatment of lung cancer Eur. Respir. J., March 1, 2002; 19(3): 557 - 570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Gabrilove Hematologic Malignancies: An Opportunity for Targeted Drug Therapy Oncologist, October 1, 2001; 6(2008): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. J. Giles The Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Signaling Pathway: A Therapeutic Target in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Oncologist, October 1, 2001; 6(2008): 32 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Okuda, E. Weisberg, D. G. Gilliland, and J. D. Griffin ARG tyrosine kinase activity is inhibited by STI571 Blood, April 15, 2001; 97(8): 2440 - 2448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]