Kelloff G J, Boone C W, Crowell J A, Nayfield S G, Hawk E, Steele V E, Lubet R A, Sigman C C
Chemoprevention Branch (CB), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC), National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1995;23:1-9. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240590902.
Well-designed and conducted Phase II clinical trials are very important to cancer chemoprevention drug development. Three critical aspects govern the design and conduct of these trials--well-characterized agents, suitable cohorts, and reliable biomarkers for measuring efficacy that can serve as surrogate endpoints for cancer incidence. Requirements for the agent are experimental or epidemiological data showing chemopreventive efficacy, safety on chronic administration, and a mechanistic rationale for the chemopreventive activity observed. Agents that meet these criteria for chemoprevention of cervical cancer include antiproliferative drugs (e.g., 2-difluoromethylornithine), retinoids, folic acid, antioxidant vitamins and other agents that prevent cellular oxidative damage. Because of the significant cervical cancer risk associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, agents that interfere with the activity of HPV products may also prove to be effective chemopreventives. In endometrium, unopposed estrogen exposure has been associated with cancer incidence. Thus, pure antiestrogens and progestins may be chemopreventive in this tissue. Ovarian cancer risk is correlated to ovulation frequency; therefore, oral contraceptives are potentially chemopreventive in the ovary. Recent clinical observations also suggest that retinoids, particularly all-trans-N-4-hydroxyphenylretinamide, may be chemopreventive in this tissue. The cohort should be suitable for measuring the chemopreventive activity of the agent and the intermediate biomarkers chosen. In the cervix, patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and in endometrium, patients with atypical hyperplasia, fit these criteria. Defining a cohort for a Phase II trial in the ovary is more difficult. This tissue is less accessible for biopsy; consequently, the presence of precancerous lesions is more difficult to confirm. The criteria for biomarkers are that they fit expected biological mechanisms (i.e., differential expression in normal and high-risk tissue, on or closely linked to the causal pathway for the cancer, modulated by chemopreventive agents, and short latency compared with cancer), may be assayed reliably and quantitatively, measured easily, and correlate to decrease cancer incidence. They must occur in sufficient incidence to allow their biological and statistical evaluation relevant to cancer. Since carcinogenesis is a multipath process, single biomarkers are difficult to validate as surrogate endpoints, perhaps appearing on only one or a few of the many possible causal pathways. Panels of biomarkers, particularly those representing the range of carcinogenesis pathways, may prove more useful as surrogate endpoints. It is important to avoid solely on biomarkers that do not describe cancer but represent isolated events that may or may not be on the causal pathway or otherwise associated with carcinogenesis. These include markers of normal cellular processes that may be increased or expressed during carcinogenesis. Chemoprevention trials should be designed to evaluate fully the two or three biomarkers that appear to be the best models of the cancer. Additional biomarkers should be considered only if they can be analyzed efficiently and the sample size allows more important biomarkers to be evaluated completely. Two types of biomarkers that stand out regarding their high correlation to cancer and their ability to be quantified are measures of intraepithelial neoplasia and indicators of cellular proliferation. Measurements made by computer-assisted image analysis that are potentially useful as surrogate endpoint biomarkers include nuclear polymorphism comprising nuclear size, shape (roundness), and texture (DNA distribution patterns); nucleolar size and number of nucleoli/nuclei; DNA ploidy, and proliferation biomarkers such as S-phase fraction and PCNA...
设计良好且实施得当的II期临床试验对于癌症化学预防药物的研发非常重要。这些试验的设计和实施受三个关键方面的制约——特性明确的药物、合适的队列以及用于测量疗效的可靠生物标志物,这些生物标志物可作为癌症发病率的替代终点。对药物的要求是有实验或流行病学数据表明其具有化学预防功效、长期给药的安全性以及所观察到的化学预防活性的作用机制原理。符合这些宫颈癌化学预防标准的药物包括抗增殖药物(如2-二氟甲基鸟氨酸)、维甲酸、叶酸、抗氧化维生素以及其他预防细胞氧化损伤的药物。由于人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)感染与宫颈癌风险显著相关,干扰HPV产物活性的药物也可能被证明是有效的化学预防剂。在子宫内膜,无对抗的雌激素暴露与癌症发病率相关。因此,纯抗雌激素药物和孕激素可能对该组织具有化学预防作用。卵巢癌风险与排卵频率相关;因此,口服避孕药可能对卵巢具有化学预防作用。最近的临床观察还表明,维甲酸,尤其是全反式-N-4-羟基苯维甲酰胺,可能对该组织具有化学预防作用。队列应适合测量药物的化学预防活性以及所选择的中间生物标志物。在子宫颈,宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)患者,在子宫内膜,非典型增生患者,符合这些标准。为卵巢的II期试验确定一个队列更为困难。该组织进行活检的难度较大;因此,癌前病变的存在更难确认。生物标志物的标准是它们符合预期的生物学机制(即正常组织和高危组织中的差异表达、与癌症的因果途径相关或紧密相连、受化学预防剂调节且与癌症相比潜伏期短),可以可靠且定量地检测、易于测量且与癌症发病率降低相关。它们的发生率必须足够高,以便能够对其与癌症相关的生物学和统计学进行评估。由于致癌作用是一个多途径过程,单一生物标志物很难作为替代终点进行验证,可能只出现在众多可能的因果途径中的一条或几条上。生物标志物组合,尤其是那些代表致癌途径范围的组合,可能作为替代终点更有用。重要的是要避免仅依赖那些不能描述癌症但代表可能在因果途径上或可能不在因果途径上或与致癌作用无关的孤立事件的生物标志物。这些包括在致癌过程中可能增加或表达的正常细胞过程的标志物。化学预防试验应设计为充分评估似乎是癌症最佳模型的两到三种生物标志物。只有当额外的生物标志物能够高效分析且样本量允许更重要的生物标志物得到全面评估时,才应考虑它们。在与癌症的高相关性及其定量能力方面突出的两种生物标志物类型是上皮内瘤变的测量指标和细胞增殖指标。通过计算机辅助图像分析进行的测量可能作为替代终点生物标志物有用,包括核多态性,包括核大小、形状(圆度)和纹理(DNA分布模式);核仁大小和核仁/细胞核数量;DNA倍性以及增殖生物标志物,如S期分数和PCNA...