Dataset Information

Comparison of power between randomized discontinuation design and upfront randomization design on progression-free survival.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Enrichment based on molecular characteristics has emerged as an important inclusion criterion in phase II trials of targeted anticancer agents. In this study, we evaluate a well-described method of population enrichment by tumor growth characteristics in the early development stage of targeted cytostatic agents.

Methods

For some solid tumors, such as pancreatic carcinoma, using a time-to-event end point (eg, time to disease progression) to evaluate the efficacy of a cytostatic agent in a phase II trial is more relevant than clinical response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In this setting, we compared the power of the randomized discontinuation and upfront randomization designs under two previously proposed tumor growth models for treatment effect when the end point is time-to-event.

Results

By selecting patients with more homogeneous tumor growth characteristics, the randomized discontinuation design is more efficient than the upfront randomization design when treatment benefit is restricted to slow-growing tumors. Under a model where only a subset of patients expressing the molecular target are sensitive to the agent, the randomized discontinuation design is more powerful than the upfront randomization design when the treatment effect is small; and vice versa when the treatment effect is moderate to large.

Conclusion

For selected targeted agents where a bioassay to select patients expressing the specific molecular target is not available, the randomized discontinuation design is a feasible alternative patient enrichment strategy in certain disease settings and provides a reasonable platform to evaluate drugs before phase III testing.

SUBMITTER: Fu P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2734425 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of power between randomized discontinuation design and upfront randomization design on progression-free survival.

Fu Pingfu P Dowlati Afshin A Schluchter Mark M

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20090727 25

<h4>Purpose</h4>Enrichment based on molecular characteristics has emerged as an important inclusion criterion in phase II trials of targeted anticancer agents. In this study, we evaluate a well-described method of population enrichment by tumor growth characteristics in the early development stage of targeted cytostatic agents.<h4>Methods</h4>For some solid tumors, such as pancreatic carcinoma, using a time-to-event end point (eg, time to disease progression) to evaluate the efficacy of a cytost ...[more]

PMID: 19636018

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rapid methods for alignment-free sequence comparison make large-scale comparisons between sequences increasingly feasible. Here we study the power of the statistic D2, which counts the number of matching k-tuples between two sequences, as well as D2*, which uses centralized counts, and D2S, which is a self-standardized version, both from a theoretical viewpoint and numerically, providing an easy to use program. The power is assessed under two alternative hidden Markov models; the first one assumes that the two sequences share a common motif, whereas the second model is a pattern transfer model; the null model is that the two sequences are composed of independent and identically distributed letters and they are independent. Under the first alternative model, the means of the tuple counts in the individual sequences change, whereas under the second alternative model, the marginal means are the same as under the null model. Using the limit distributions of the count statistics under the null and the alternative models, we find that generally, asymptotically D2S has the largest power, followed by D2*, whereas the power of D2 can even be zero in some cases. In contrast, even for sequences of length 140,000 bp, in simulations D2* generally has the largest power. Under the first alternative model of a shared motif, the power of D2*approaches 100% when sufficiently many motifs are shared, and we recommend the use of D2* for such practical applications. Under the second alternative model of pattern transfer,the power for all three count statistics does not increase with sequence length when the sequence is sufficiently long, and hence none of the three statistics under consideration canbe recommended in such a situation. We illustrate the approach on 323 transcription factor binding motifs with length at most 10 from JASPAR CORE (October 12, 2009 version),verifying that D2* is generally more powerful than D2. The program to calculate the power of D2, D2* and D2S can be downloaded from http://meta.cmb.usc.edu/d2. Supplementary Material is available at www.liebertonline.com/cmb.

Project description:ObjectiveRecently, hormonal therapy using abiraterone acetate, a second-generation androgen receptor axis-targeted agent, was reported to improve overall survival and progression-free survival in men with LATITUDE-high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. This observational multicenter study aimed to assess the efficacy of upfront abiraterone acetate in Japanese patients with LATITUDE-high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.MethodsThe present study included 112 Japanese patients with LATITUDE-high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer who received upfront abiraterone acetate at four institutions belonging to the Tokai Urologic Oncology Research Seminar group, between January 2018 and September 2020. Progression-free survival and overall survival were assessed, and Cox regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the prognostic significance of upfront abiraterone acetate for progression-free survival.ResultsWithin a median follow-up period of 13 months, the progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 76.8% and 89.3%, respectively. Both univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses showed that the presence of Gleason pattern 5, performance status and hemoglobin were independent predictors of progression-free survival. The patients were subsequently divided into three groups as follows: group 1, 17 patients negative for these three independent progression-free survival predictors; group 2, 49 patients with one positive independent progression-free survival predictor; and group 3, 45 patients with two or three independent progression-free survival predictors. Progression-free survival was significantly different among these three groups (P < 0.001).ConclusionUpfront abiraterone acetate might provide satisfactory outcomes for Japanese patients with LATITUDE-high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Gleason pattern 5, performance status and hemoglobin are potential predictors of progression-free survival in Japanese patients with LATITUDE-high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer who received upfront abiraterone acetate.

Project description:Introduction: With a gap in a full understanding of the mechanisms by which survival is extended for patients with cancer who are treated with novel biologic and targeted agents, there is the risk that discordant progression-free and overall survival outcomes are observed due to poor clinical trial design or biases in the interpretation of data. This study was designed to examine the role of study quality and design on the outcomes observed with biologic and targeted agents. Methods: A review of studies in clinicaltrials.gov supplemented with a literature review in OVID Medline was conducted to identify all randomized trials of a biologic/targeted agent versus a non-biologic/targeted comparator in oncology that report both median overall and progression-free survival outcomes. Details of the study, design, population, drugs, and outcomes were extracted. Study quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized using SPSS 22.0.0.0. Results: A total of 192 unique studies of 206 pairwise comparisons between a biologic/targeted and comparator were identified. The average absolute magnitude of post-progression survival (difference between OS and PFS) was 9.7 months for biologic/targeted therapy and 9.8 for the comparator. A total of 64 comparisons (31.1%) showed an increase in OS and decrease in PFS, or vice versa, and 25 (12.1%) showed a magnitude of more than 4 months difference between the delta of OS and delta of PFS between the biologic/targeted and comparator arms. Average study quality was high overall (7.7/10), and was comparable for studies with directional differences (7.2/10) as well as for those with the greatest magnitude in post-progression survival (7.4/10). Conclusion: This review and analysis specifically examined small PFS benefit with large OS benefit as well as small OS benefit with large PFS benefit, including differences in direction of PFS and OS outcomes. No evidence was identified that these are the result of poor study design, but may rather be due to the mechanism of action, specific disease, and population under study. Further work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of novel biologic/targeted agents to better understand their interaction with the tumor microenvironment.

Project description:ImportanceUveal melanoma is characterized by mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, resulting in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activation.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of selumetinib, a selective, non-adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2, in uveal melanoma.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial comparing selumetinib vs chemotherapy conducted from August 2010 through December 2013 among 120 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma at 15 academic oncology centers in the United States and Canada.InterventionsOne hundred one patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive selumetinib, 75 mg orally twice daily on a continual basis (n = 50), or chemotherapy (temozolomide, 150 mg/m2 orally daily for 5 of every 28 days, or dacarbazine, 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days [investigator choice]; n = 51) until disease progression, death, intolerable adverse effects, or withdrawal of consent. After primary outcome analysis, 19 patients were registered and 18 treated with selumetinib without randomization to complete the planned 120-patient enrollment. Patients in the chemotherapy group could receive selumetinib at the time of radiographic progression.Main outcomes and measuresProgression-free survival, the primary end point, was assessed as of April 22, 2013. Additional end points, including overall survival, response rate, and safety/toxicity, were assessed as of December 31, 2013.ResultsMedian progression-free survival among patients randomized to chemotherapy was 7 weeks (95% CI, 4.3-8.4 weeks; median treatment duration, 8 weeks; interquartile range [IQR], 4.3-16 weeks) and among those randomized to selumetinib was 15.9 weeks (95% CI, 8.4-21.1 weeks; median treatment duration, 16.1 weeks; IQR, 8.1-25.3 weeks) (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P < .001). Median overall survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI, 6.1-11.1 months) with chemotherapy and 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.8-15.7 months) with selumetinib (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.41-1.06; P = .09). No objective responses were observed with chemotherapy. Forty-nine percent of patients treated with selumetinib achieved tumor regression, with 14% achieving an objective radiographic response to therapy. Treatment-related adverse events were observed in 97% of patients treated with selumetinib, with 37% requiring at least 1 dose reduction.Conclusions and relevanceIn this hypothesis-generating study of patients with advanced uveal melanoma, selumetinib compared with chemotherapy resulted in a modestly improved progression-free survival and response rate; however, no improvement in overall survival was observed. Improvement in clinical outcomes was accompanied by a high rate of adverse events.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01143402.

Dataset Information

Comparison of power between randomized discontinuation design and upfront randomization design on progression-free survival.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of power between randomized discontinuation design and upfront randomization design on progression-free survival.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets