Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Discussion - Public policy

5192 - Comparison between phase III randomized clinical trials and their preceeding phase II studies.


29 Sep 2019


Poster Discussion - Public policy


Ivan Lyra-Gonzalez


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v671-v682. 10.1093/annonc/mdz263


I. Lyra-Gonzalez, O. Espin-Garcia, M.K. Krzyzanowska, R.W. Jang, E. Elimova

Author affiliations

  • University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, M5G 2M9 - Toronto/CA


Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 5192


Few studies have assessed the differences in outcomes between phase II versus III landmark studies in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. The primary aim of this study was to determine differences in overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) between phase III studies and their preceeding phase II studies and to assess for differences in reported grade 3 and 4 toxicities.


A PubMed search was performed and reports of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating systemic therapies in GI malignancies, published between 2008 and 2018 in JAMA, NEJM, JCO, Ann Oncol, Lancet, and Lancet Oncol were included. Preceeding phase II studies were identified by searching in PubMed and Medline using author and group names from the phase III studies. Phase II studies could be published in any journal. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, ORR, and incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were collected and compared between available phase III and phase II pairs via meta-analysis.


Out of 788 phase III studies identified, 91 met our inclusion criteria. Corresponding phase II studies were found in 43 cases (47%). The most studied tumour sites were colorectal, gastric and pancreas cancer. Fifty-five (60.4%) phase III studies were entirely funded by industry and 44 (80%) focused on metastatic disease. In the localized disease setting, only 5 (21.7%) studies were preceeded by a phase II trial, while in the metastatic setting this occurred in 38 (55.9%) studies. Comparisons between phase III and their phase II trials, showed no difference in ORR (p = 0.191) and a hazard ratio increase in phase III OS (p = 0.028). Additionally, we observed no difference in AEs (p = 0.203), where only 52 (57%) of the phase III studies clearly stated the overall incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities.


Lack of preceeding phase II studies in 48 (52.7%) phase III studies published in high impact journals suggests there may be insufficient background data for the performance of pivotal trials. The reported ORRs and grade 3/4 toxicities were similar between phase III and II studies, however, phase III studies show an increment in HRs for OS of 19.7% (2.0-40.5 95%CI) compared to phase II studies.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.


Has not received any funding.


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.