Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is an important cause of mortality in women worldwide, and the cervix is a well-established clinical, cytologic, and histopathologic model of carcinogenesis. The cervix is easily accessible for examination and biopsy, and colposcopy improves visualization. Identifying chemopreventive...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer causes & control 2002-11, Vol.13 (9), p.855-873
Hauptverfasser: Follen, Michele, Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse, Meyskens, Frank L., Atkinson, E. Neely, Schottenfeld, David
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 873
container_issue 9
container_start_page 855
container_title Cancer causes & control
container_volume 13
creator Follen, Michele
Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse
Meyskens, Frank L.
Atkinson, E. Neely
Schottenfeld, David
description Cervical cancer is an important cause of mortality in women worldwide, and the cervix is a well-established clinical, cytologic, and histopathologic model of carcinogenesis. The cervix is easily accessible for examination and biopsy, and colposcopy improves visualization. Identifying chemopreventives in cervical cancer requires rigorous study design: dose de-escalating phase I, IIa trials; placebo-controlled phase IIb trials; and multicenter phase III trials. Reduction in disease incidence and surrogate endpoint biomarkers (SEB) may be trial endpoints. The goal of chemoprevention studies is to prevent or delay the development of cancer. Each agent requires a phase I or IIa trial for each organ site. Phase I, IIa studies of micronutrients, retinoids, α-difluoromethylornithine, and indole-3-carbinol have demonstrated response rates of up to 70%, but results of placebo-controlled phase IIb studies have been disappointing and their findings confounded by the high regression rates in placebo-treated patients. Enhancement of research methods, including sufficient enrollment guided by power calculations, uniform biopsy at study entry and exit, and strict progression through trial design phases would ensure valid and reliable results. Because human papillomavirus (HPV) is the major etiologic agent, pretrial laboratory and animal studies should have demonstrated the efficacy of the chemopreventive agent to decrease HPV viral protein expression or HPV tumor induction. SEB modulation must be characterized in any trial's earliest phases before use in phases IIb and III. Lessons learned in chemoprevention will serve as a basis for immunoprevention and vaccine trials.
doi_str_mv 10.1023/A:1020660527600
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_213060513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3553760</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3553760</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-1385707f51a9aacaaced37b2dd2bb993fc84ad42abb2e1e502ed8ca0d14d2b9f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kEFLw0AQhRdRbK2evYgs3qOzs9ls04uUoLZQVLDSY9hkJyalTeomDfTfu2AVBt5hPt6Dj7FrAfcCUD5MJz4gikChjgBO2FAoLQONqE7ZEGKlA4WhHLCLtl0DgIoQztlAYBihUmLIPlblgb-XpiU-n_Olq8ym5VXNE3J9lZsNT0raNjtHPdVd1dR86oi_0pfpqp4mfFWajs9MT3xFfEHG1WQfL9lZ4Wvo6pgj9vn8tExmweLtZZ5MF0EuQ-wCIcdKgy6UMLExuT-yUmdoLWZZHMsiH4fGhmiyDEmQAiQ7zg1YEXoiLuSI3f327lzzvae2S9fN3tV-MkUhwUsR0kO3R2ifbcmmO1dtjTukfwo8cPMLrNuucf9_qZT0SuUPONll7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>213060513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Follen, Michele ; Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse ; Meyskens, Frank L. ; Atkinson, E. Neely ; Schottenfeld, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Follen, Michele ; Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse ; Meyskens, Frank L. ; Atkinson, E. Neely ; Schottenfeld, David</creatorcontrib><description>Cervical cancer is an important cause of mortality in women worldwide, and the cervix is a well-established clinical, cytologic, and histopathologic model of carcinogenesis. The cervix is easily accessible for examination and biopsy, and colposcopy improves visualization. Identifying chemopreventives in cervical cancer requires rigorous study design: dose de-escalating phase I, IIa trials; placebo-controlled phase IIb trials; and multicenter phase III trials. Reduction in disease incidence and surrogate endpoint biomarkers (SEB) may be trial endpoints. The goal of chemoprevention studies is to prevent or delay the development of cancer. Each agent requires a phase I or IIa trial for each organ site. Phase I, IIa studies of micronutrients, retinoids, α-difluoromethylornithine, and indole-3-carbinol have demonstrated response rates of up to 70%, but results of placebo-controlled phase IIb studies have been disappointing and their findings confounded by the high regression rates in placebo-treated patients. Enhancement of research methods, including sufficient enrollment guided by power calculations, uniform biopsy at study entry and exit, and strict progression through trial design phases would ensure valid and reliable results. Because human papillomavirus (HPV) is the major etiologic agent, pretrial laboratory and animal studies should have demonstrated the efficacy of the chemopreventive agent to decrease HPV viral protein expression or HPV tumor induction. SEB modulation must be characterized in any trial's earliest phases before use in phases IIb and III. Lessons learned in chemoprevention will serve as a basis for immunoprevention and vaccine trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0957-5243</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7225</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/A:1020660527600</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12462551</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CCCNEN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Biological markers ; Biomarkers ; Biopsies ; Biopsy ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - epidemiology ; Cervical cancer ; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - epidemiology ; Cervix ; Chemoprevention ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic ; Cohort analysis ; Dosage ; Experimentation ; Female ; Human papillomavirus ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lesions ; Mortality ; Pap smear ; Papillomaviridae ; Placebos ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Response rates ; Tumors ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology ; Vitamin C ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Cancer causes &amp; control, 2002-11, Vol.13 (9), p.855-873</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers</rights><rights>Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers Nov 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-1385707f51a9aacaaced37b2dd2bb993fc84ad42abb2e1e502ed8ca0d14d2b9f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3553760$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3553760$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12462551$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Follen, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyskens, Frank L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schottenfeld, David</creatorcontrib><title>Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?</title><title>Cancer causes &amp; control</title><addtitle>Cancer Causes Control</addtitle><description>Cervical cancer is an important cause of mortality in women worldwide, and the cervix is a well-established clinical, cytologic, and histopathologic model of carcinogenesis. The cervix is easily accessible for examination and biopsy, and colposcopy improves visualization. Identifying chemopreventives in cervical cancer requires rigorous study design: dose de-escalating phase I, IIa trials; placebo-controlled phase IIb trials; and multicenter phase III trials. Reduction in disease incidence and surrogate endpoint biomarkers (SEB) may be trial endpoints. The goal of chemoprevention studies is to prevent or delay the development of cancer. Each agent requires a phase I or IIa trial for each organ site. Phase I, IIa studies of micronutrients, retinoids, α-difluoromethylornithine, and indole-3-carbinol have demonstrated response rates of up to 70%, but results of placebo-controlled phase IIb studies have been disappointing and their findings confounded by the high regression rates in placebo-treated patients. Enhancement of research methods, including sufficient enrollment guided by power calculations, uniform biopsy at study entry and exit, and strict progression through trial design phases would ensure valid and reliable results. Because human papillomavirus (HPV) is the major etiologic agent, pretrial laboratory and animal studies should have demonstrated the efficacy of the chemopreventive agent to decrease HPV viral protein expression or HPV tumor induction. SEB modulation must be characterized in any trial's earliest phases before use in phases IIb and III. Lessons learned in chemoprevention will serve as a basis for immunoprevention and vaccine trials.</description><subject>Biological markers</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Biopsies</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - epidemiology</subject><subject>Cervical cancer</subject><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - epidemiology</subject><subject>Cervix</subject><subject>Chemoprevention</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Dosage</subject><subject>Experimentation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human papillomavirus</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Pap smear</subject><subject>Papillomaviridae</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology</subject><subject>Vitamin C</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>0957-5243</issn><issn>1573-7225</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kEFLw0AQhRdRbK2evYgs3qOzs9ls04uUoLZQVLDSY9hkJyalTeomDfTfu2AVBt5hPt6Dj7FrAfcCUD5MJz4gikChjgBO2FAoLQONqE7ZEGKlA4WhHLCLtl0DgIoQztlAYBihUmLIPlblgb-XpiU-n_Olq8ym5VXNE3J9lZsNT0raNjtHPdVd1dR86oi_0pfpqp4mfFWajs9MT3xFfEHG1WQfL9lZ4Wvo6pgj9vn8tExmweLtZZ5MF0EuQ-wCIcdKgy6UMLExuT-yUmdoLWZZHMsiH4fGhmiyDEmQAiQ7zg1YEXoiLuSI3f327lzzvae2S9fN3tV-MkUhwUsR0kO3R2ifbcmmO1dtjTukfwo8cPMLrNuucf9_qZT0SuUPONll7g</recordid><startdate>20021101</startdate><enddate>20021101</enddate><creator>Follen, Michele</creator><creator>Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse</creator><creator>Meyskens, Frank L.</creator><creator>Atkinson, E. Neely</creator><creator>Schottenfeld, David</creator><general>Kluwer Academic Publishers</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021101</creationdate><title>Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?</title><author>Follen, Michele ; Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse ; Meyskens, Frank L. ; Atkinson, E. Neely ; Schottenfeld, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c342t-1385707f51a9aacaaced37b2dd2bb993fc84ad42abb2e1e502ed8ca0d14d2b9f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Biological markers</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Biopsies</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - epidemiology</topic><topic>Cervical cancer</topic><topic>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - epidemiology</topic><topic>Cervix</topic><topic>Chemoprevention</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Dosage</topic><topic>Experimentation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human papillomavirus</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Pap smear</topic><topic>Papillomaviridae</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology</topic><topic>Vitamin C</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Follen, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyskens, Frank L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schottenfeld, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Cancer causes &amp; control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Follen, Michele</au><au>Vlastos, Anne-Thérèse</au><au>Meyskens, Frank L.</au><au>Atkinson, E. Neely</au><au>Schottenfeld, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?</atitle><jtitle>Cancer causes &amp; control</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer Causes Control</addtitle><date>2002-11-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>855</spage><epage>873</epage><pages>855-873</pages><issn>0957-5243</issn><eissn>1573-7225</eissn><coden>CCCNEN</coden><abstract>Cervical cancer is an important cause of mortality in women worldwide, and the cervix is a well-established clinical, cytologic, and histopathologic model of carcinogenesis. The cervix is easily accessible for examination and biopsy, and colposcopy improves visualization. Identifying chemopreventives in cervical cancer requires rigorous study design: dose de-escalating phase I, IIa trials; placebo-controlled phase IIb trials; and multicenter phase III trials. Reduction in disease incidence and surrogate endpoint biomarkers (SEB) may be trial endpoints. The goal of chemoprevention studies is to prevent or delay the development of cancer. Each agent requires a phase I or IIa trial for each organ site. Phase I, IIa studies of micronutrients, retinoids, α-difluoromethylornithine, and indole-3-carbinol have demonstrated response rates of up to 70%, but results of placebo-controlled phase IIb studies have been disappointing and their findings confounded by the high regression rates in placebo-treated patients. Enhancement of research methods, including sufficient enrollment guided by power calculations, uniform biopsy at study entry and exit, and strict progression through trial design phases would ensure valid and reliable results. Because human papillomavirus (HPV) is the major etiologic agent, pretrial laboratory and animal studies should have demonstrated the efficacy of the chemopreventive agent to decrease HPV viral protein expression or HPV tumor induction. SEB modulation must be characterized in any trial's earliest phases before use in phases IIb and III. Lessons learned in chemoprevention will serve as a basis for immunoprevention and vaccine trials.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Kluwer Academic Publishers</pub><pmid>12462551</pmid><doi>10.1023/A:1020660527600</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0957-5243
ispartof Cancer causes & control, 2002-11, Vol.13 (9), p.855-873
issn 0957-5243
1573-7225
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_213060513
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Biological markers
Biomarkers
Biopsies
Biopsy
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - epidemiology
Cervical cancer
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - epidemiology
Cervix
Chemoprevention
Clinical trials
Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
Cohort analysis
Dosage
Experimentation
Female
Human papillomavirus
Humans
Incidence
Lesions
Mortality
Pap smear
Papillomaviridae
Placebos
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Response rates
Tumors
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention & control
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology
Vitamin C
Womens health
title Why Phase II Trials in Cervical Chemoprevention Are Negative: What Have We Learned?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T17%3A24%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20Phase%20II%20Trials%20in%20Cervical%20Chemoprevention%20Are%20Negative:%20What%20Have%20We%20Learned?&rft.jtitle=Cancer%20causes%20&%20control&rft.au=Follen,%20Michele&rft.date=2002-11-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=855&rft.epage=873&rft.pages=855-873&rft.issn=0957-5243&rft.eissn=1573-7225&rft.coden=CCCNEN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/A:1020660527600&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3553760%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=213060513&rft_id=info:pmid/12462551&rft_jstor_id=3553760&rfr_iscdi=true