Dataset Information

Modeling the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival: the phase II/III trial.

ABSTRACT: The standard phase II trial design has changed dramatically over the past decade. Randomized phase II studies have essentially become the standard phase II design in oncology for a variety of reasons. The use of these designs is motivated by concerns about the use of historical data to determine if a new agent or regimen shows promise of activity. However, randomized phase II designs come with the cost of increased study duration and patient resources. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an important endpoint used in many phase II designs. In many clinical settings, changes in PFS with the introduction of a new treatment may represent true benefit in terms of the gold standard outcome, overall survival (OS). The phase II/III design has been proposed as an approach to shorten the time of discovery of an active regimen. In this article, design considerations for a phase II/III trial are discussed and presented in terms of a model defining the relationship between OS and PFS. The design is also evaluated using 15 phase III trials completed in the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) between 1990 and 2005. The model provides a framework to evaluate the validity and properties of using a phase II/III design. In the evaluation of SWOG trials, three of four positive studies would have also proceeded to the final analysis and 10 of 11 negative studies would have stopped at the phase II analysis if a phase II/III design had been used. Through careful consideration and thorough evaluation of design properties, substantial gains could occur using this approach.

SUBMITTER: Redman MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4131693 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modeling the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival: the phase II/III trial.

Redman Mary W MW Goldman Bryan H BH LeBlanc Michael M Schott Anne A Baker Laurence H LH

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20130501 10

The standard phase II trial design has changed dramatically over the past decade. Randomized phase II studies have essentially become the standard phase II design in oncology for a variety of reasons. The use of these designs is motivated by concerns about the use of historical data to determine if a new agent or regimen shows promise of activity. However, randomized phase II designs come with the cost of increased study duration and patient resources. Progression-free survival (PFS) is an impor ...[more]

PMID: 23669424

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeTo test, in a single-arm, prospective, phase 2 trial, whether adding the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib to concurrent chemoradiotherapy for previously untreated, locally advanced, inoperable non-small cell lung cancer would improve survival and disease control without increasing toxicity.Methods and materialsForty-eight patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer received intensity modulated radiation therapy (63 Gy/35 fractions) on Monday through Friday, with chemotherapy (paclitaxel 45 mg/m², carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] = 2) on Mondays, for 7 weeks. All patients also received the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (150 mg orally 1/d) on Tuesday-Sunday for 7 weeks, followed by consolidation paclitaxel-carboplatin. The primary endpoint was time to progression; secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), toxicity, response, and disease control and whether any endpoint differed by EGFR mutation status.ResultsOf 46 patients evaluable for response, 40 were former or never-smokers, and 41 were evaluable for EGFR mutations (37 wild-type [WT] and 4 mutated [all adenocarcinoma]). Median time to progression was 14.0 months and did not differ by EGFR status. Toxicity was acceptable (no grade 5, 1 grade 4, 11 grade 3). Twelve patients (26%) had complete responses (10 WT, 2 mutated), 27 (59%) partial (21 WT, 2 mutated, 4 unknown), and 7 (15%) none (6 WT, 2 mutated, 1 unknown) (P=.610). At 37.0 months' follow-up (range, 3.6-76.5 months) for all patients, median OS time was 36.5 months, and 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS rates were 82.6%, 67.4%, and 35.9%, respectively; none differed by mutation status. Twelve patients had no progression, and 34 had local and/or distant failure. Eleven of 27 distant failures were in the brain (7 WT, 3 mutated, 1 unknown).ConclusionsToxicity and OS were promising, but time to progression did not meet expectations. The prevalence of distant failures underscores the need for effective systemic therapy.

Project description:BackgroundOlaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic. In the primary analysis of this phase II study, combination cediranib/olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This updated analysis was conducted to characterize overall survival (OS) and update PFS outcomes.Patients and methodsNinety patients were enrolled to this randomized, open-label, phase II study between October 2011 and June 2013 across nine United States-based academic centers. Data cut-off was 21 December 2016, with a median follow-up of 46 months. Participants had relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer of high-grade serous or endometrioid histology or had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Participants were randomized to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily until disease progression.ResultsIn this updated analysis, median PFS remained significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib compared with olaparib alone (16.5 versus 8.2 months, hazard ratio 0.50; P = 0.007). Subset analyses within stratum defined by BRCA status demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS (23.7 versus 5.7 months, P = 0.002) and OS (37.8 versus 23.0 months, P = 0.047) in gBRCA wild-type/unknown patients, although OS was not statistically different in the overall study population (44.2 versus 33.3 months, hazard ratio 0.64; P = 0.11). PFS and OS appeared similar between the two arms in gBRCAm patients. The most common CTCAE grade 3/4 adverse events with cediranib/olaparib remained fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension.ConclusionsCombination cediranib/olaparib significantly extends PFS compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Subset analyses suggest this margin of benefit is driven by PFS prolongation in patients without gBRCAm. OS was also significantly increased by the cediranib/olaparib combination in this subset of patients. Additional studies of this combination are ongoing and should incorporate analyses based upon BRCA status.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT0111648.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We evaluated the impact of thoracic radiation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), considering the depletion of total lymphocytes, use or not of chemotherapy, and radiation doses in healthy lung tissue. METHODS:Patients with stage III NSCLC, ECOG 0 to 2, receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy were prospectively evaluated. All patients should be treated with three-dimensional radiotherapy and received biologically effective doses (BED10?/? 10) of 48 to 80 Gy. Peripheral blood lymphocyte total counts were measured at the start of radiotherapy and at 2, 6 and 12 months after radiotherapy. Along with lymphocytes, PTV and doses of 5 Gy and 20 Gy in healthy lung tissue were also evaluated as potential factors influencing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS:A total of 46 patients were prospectively evaluated from April 2016 to August 2019, with a median follow-up of 13 months (interquartile range, 1-39 months). The median of OS of all cohort was 22,8 months (IC 95% 17,6-28,1) and the median PFS was 19,5 months (IC 95%: 14,7-24,2). Most patients received concurrent or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (43; 93.4%). No patient received adjuvant immunotherapy. The lower the lymphocyte loss at 6 months after radiotherapy (every 100 lymphocytes/mcL), the greater the chance of PFS (HR, 0.44; 95%CI, 0.25-0.77; P?=?0.004) and OS (HR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.70-0.98; P?=?0.025; P?=?0.025). BED was a protective factor for both PFS (HR, 0.52; 95%CI 0.33-0.83; P?=?0.0006) and OS (HR, 0.73; 95%CI 0.54-0.97; P?=?0.029). CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that lymphocyte depletion after radiotherapy reduces tumor control and survival in patients with stage III lung cancer. Radiation doses equal or higher than 60?Gy (BED10 72 Gy) improve PFS and OS, but they negatively affect lymphocyte counts for months, which reduces survival and the potential of immunotherapy. KEY POINTS:SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Thoracic irradiation for locally advanced lung cancer depletes T lymphocytes for months. Patients whose lymphocyte loss is lower have better overall survival and progression-free survival. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:It is necessary to protect the lymphocyte population, as well as other organs at risk. New forms of irradiation for large fields are needed. Furthermore, could immunotherapy before chemo-radiotherapy, with a greater number of lymphocytes, bring an even better result?

Dataset Information

Modeling the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival: the phase II/III trial.

Publications

Modeling the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival: the phase II/III trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets