Dataset Information

Defining the Most Appropriate Primary End Point in Phase 2 Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Checkpoint inhibitors have a unique mechanism of action that differs from chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The validity of objective response rate (ORR) as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in checkpoint-inhibitor trials is uncertain. Objective:To determine the types of primary end points used in phase 2 checkpoint-inhibitor trials, and to assess the strength of associations for ORR with PFS and OS. Data Sources:Trials listed in electronic databases from 2000 to 2017 (PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Study Selection:Advanced solid cancers in phase 2 and phase 3 trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Correlations between ORR odds ratios and hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were examined for randomized comparisons. Within checkpoint-inhibitor treatment arms, correlations for ORR with 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates were examined. All analyses were weighted by trial size. Multivariable models to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates from ORR were developed and their performance validated in an independent sample of trials. Main Outcomes and Measures:Correlation coefficient (r) of ORR with PFS and OS. Results:Of 87 phase 2 trials identified, ORR was the most common (52 [60%]) primary end point. Twenty randomized clinical trials with 25 treatment comparisons were identified. Checkpoint-inhibitor therapy was associated with pooled ORR of 24% (95% CI, 18%-31%). For randomized comparisons, r between ORR odds ratio and PFS HR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.89), ORR odds ratio and OS HR was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.23-0.89), and between PFS HR and OS HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.04-0.81). Within the checkpoint-inhibitor arms, r correlation coefficients between ORR with 6-month PFS, ORR with 12-month OS, and 6-month PFS with 12-month OS were 0.37 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.95), 0.08 (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.70), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.92), respectively. In validation, when 6-month PFS was used to predict 12-month OS, there was a good calibration between actual and predicted 12-month OS. When ORR was used to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates, respectively, the actual vs predicted rates calibrated poorly. Conclusions and Relevance:In checkpoint-inhibitor trials, ORR correlated poorly with OS. For future phase 2 studies, 6-month PFS rate is recommended as an end point.

SUBMITTER: Ritchie G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5885200 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining the Most Appropriate Primary End Point in Phase 2 Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ritchie Georgia G Gasper Harry H Man Johnathan J Lord Sally S Marschner Ian I Friedlander Michael M Lee Chee Khoon CK

JAMA oncology 20180401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Checkpoint inhibitors have a unique mechanism of action that differs from chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The validity of objective response rate (ORR) as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in checkpoint-inhibitor trials is uncertain.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the types of primary end points used in phase 2 checkpoint-inhibitor trials, and to assess the strength of associations for ORR with PFS and OS.<h4>Data sources</h4>Trials l ...[more]

PMID: 29470579

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe administration of second-line or subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in previously treated patients with advanced solid cancers has been clinically investigated. However, previous clinical trials lacked an appropriate primary endpoint for efficacy assessment. This systematic review aimed to explore the most optimal early efficacy endpoint for such trials.MethodsPhase 2 or 3 clinical trials involving patients with advanced solid cancers with disease progression following standard first-line therapy receiving second-line or subsequent ICI administration, with adequate survival outcome data, were included from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases before February 2023. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized trials, respectively. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 3, 6, and 9 months were investigated as potential early efficacy endpoint candidates for 12-month overall survival (OS), with a strong correlation defined as Pearson's correlation coefficient r ≥ 0.8.ResultsA total of 64 RCTs comprising 22,725 patients and 106 non-randomized prospective trials involving 10,608 participants were eligible for modeling and external validation, respectively. RCTs examined 15 different cancer types, predominantly non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (17, 28%), melanoma (9, 14%), and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (5, 8%). The median sample size of RCTs was 124 patients, and the median follow-up time was 3.2-57.7 months. The ORR (r = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.54) and PFS (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-0.64) exhibited weak trial-level correlations with OS. Within ICI treatment arms, the r values of ORR and 3-, 6-, and 9-month PFS with 12-month OS were 0.61 (95% CI, 0.37-0.79), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.90), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90), respectively. External validation of 6-month PFS indicated an acceptable discrepancy between actual and predicted 12-month OS.ConclusionsIn non-randomized phase 2 trials on second-line or subsequent ICI therapy in patients with advanced solid cancers, 6-month PFS could serve as an early efficacy endpoint. However, early efficacy endpoints are not recommended in RCTs to replace OS.

Project description:ImportanceObjective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly important end point for accelerated development of highly active anticancer therapies, yet its relationship to regulatory approval is not well characterized.ObjectiveTo identify circumstances in which a high ORR is associated with regulatory approval, and therefore might be an appropriate end point for definitive single-arm studies of anticancer therapies.Data sourceA database of all oncology clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2010.Study selectionTrials of palliative systemic therapies for 4 measurable solid tumor types, limited to those with trial arms of at least 20 patients reporting ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).Data extraction and synthesisA systematic search was used to identify the reported ORR for each eligible treatment arm that had been presented publicly.Main outcomes and measuresFor each treatment regimen, defined as a single-agent or unique combination of agents for 1 cancer type, the mean ORR and the maximum ORR statistically exceeded were calculated, and their association with regulatory approval was studied. A regimen was considered approved for a specific cancer type if it had received regulatory approval in any country for treatment of advanced cancer of that type.ResultsFrom 1800 trials, 874 eligible trial arms in 578 eligible trials were identified; 542 arms had ORR data available for 294 regimens. Maximum ORR and mean ORR were significantly associated with regulatory approval (τ = 0.27, P < .001; τ = 0.12, P = .01); this relationship was stronger for single-agent therapies (τ = 0.49; τ = 0.41) than for combination regimens (τ = 0.28; τ = 0.17). Evaluation of ORR thresholds between 20% and 60% as potential trial end points demonstrated that ORR statistically exceeding 30% with a single agent had 98% specificity and 89% positive predictive value for identifying regimens achieving regulatory approval.Conclusions and relevanceFor single-agent regimens, high ORR was associated with regulatory approval; this relationship was less strong for combination regimens. Our data suggest that high ORR (eg, statistically exceeding an ORR of 30%) is an appropriate end point for single-arm trials aiming to demonstrate breakthrough activity of a single-agent anticancer therapy.

Project description:Sarcopenia, which is characterized by a decrease in muscle quantity or quality, is commonly observed in patients with cancer. Recent research has reported contradictory results on the association between sarcopenia and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this discrepancy. We systematically searched three electronic databases to identify articles reporting on the association between sarcopenia and treatment outcomes in patients with solid cancers who received ICIs. The outcomes assessed were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and toxicity. Pooled estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 2501 patients from 26 studies were analysed. Sarcopenia was observed in 44.7% (95% CI: 38.2-51.3) of the patients and was significantly associated with poor survival (HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.32-1.82 for OS and HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.93 for PFS). The HRs (95% CIs) for OS according to the diagnostic measures used were 1.97 (0.88-4.41) for psoas muscle index (PMI), 1.41 (0.87-2.28) for skeletal muscle density (SMD), and 1.43 (1.23-1.67) for skeletal mass index (SMI). The HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 1.86 (1.08-3.21) for PMI, 1.27 (0.94-1.71) for SMD, and 1.38 (1.11-1.71) for SMI. Poor radiological response to ICI therapy was observed in patients with sarcopenia (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.34-0.80 for ORR and OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.30-0.67 for DCR). The ORs for ORR (95% CIs) were 0.56 (0.15-2.05) for PMI and 0.78 (0.56-1.09) for SMI. The oncologic outcomes associated with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were comparable with those observed overall (HR for OS = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.26-3.24 for melanoma and HR for OS = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.19-2.18 for NSCLC). In contrast, the occurrence of severe toxicity was not associated with sarcopenia (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.51-2.52). Poor survival and poor response in patients with sarcopenia indicate a negative association between sarcopenia and efficacy of ICIs. Sarcopenia's predictive ability is consistent across various tumour types. For the selection of patients who may respond to ICIs pre-therapeutically, the presence of sarcopenia should be assessed in clinical practice.

Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are part of standard of care for patients with many advanced solid tumors. Patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction are traditionally ineligible to partake in pivotal randomized clinical trials of ICIs.ObjectiveTo assess ICI use and survival outcomes among patients with advanced cancers who are traditionally trial ineligible based on poor performance status or organ dysfunction.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in 280 predominantly community oncology practices in the US and included 34 131 patients (9318 [27.3%] trial ineligible) who initiated first-line systemic therapy from January 2014 through December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent nontargetable non-small cell lung, urothelial cell, renal cell, or hepatocellular carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2019, to June 1, 2021.ExposuresTrial ineligibility (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 or the presence of kidney or liver dysfunction); first-line systemic therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe association between trial ineligibility and ICI monotherapy uptake was assessed using inverse probability-weighted (IPW) logistic regressions. The comparative survival outcomes following ICI and non-ICI therapy among trial-ineligible patients were assessed using treatment IPW survival analyses. Because we observed nonproportional hazards, we reported 12-month and 36-month restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) and time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of less than 6 months and 6 months or greater.ResultsAmong the overall cohort (n = 34 131), the median (IQR) age was 70 (62-77) years; 23 586 (69%) were White individuals, and 14 478 (42%) were women. Over the study period, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0% to 30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and 0.1% to 19.4% among trial-eligible patients. Trial ineligibility was associated with increased ICI monotherapy use (IPW-adjusted odds ratio compared with non-ICI therapy, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, and non-ICI therapy at 12 months (RMST, 7.8 vs 7.7 vs 8.1 months) or 36 months (RMST, 15.0 vs 13.9 vs 14.4 months). Compared with non-ICI therapy, ICI monotherapy showed evidence of early harm (IPW-adjusted HR within 6 months, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) but late benefit (adjusted HR among patients who survived 6 months, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, compared with trial-eligible patients, trial-ineligible patients with advanced cancers preferentially received first-line ICI therapy. A survival difference was not detected between ICI and non-ICI therapies among trial-ineligible patients. Positive results for ICI in phase 3 trials may not translate to this vulnerable population.

Dataset Information

Defining the Most Appropriate Primary End Point in Phase 2 Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Defining the Most Appropriate Primary End Point in Phase 2 Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets