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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer causes & control 2002-11, Vol.13 (9), p.855-873 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & control ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - virology ; Vitamin C ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Cancer causes & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 & 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 & 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 |