Dataset Information

Comparison of Duration of Response vs Conventional Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival as Efficacy End Points in Simulated Immuno-oncology Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Phase 2 trials and early efficacy end points play a crucial role in informing decisions about whether to continue to phase 3 trials. Conventional end points, such as objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), have demonstrated inconsistent associations with overall survival (OS) benefits in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Restricted mean duration of response (DOR) is a rigorous metric that combines both response status and duration information. However, its utility in clinical development has not been comprehensively explored.

Objective

To determine whether using restricted mean DOR in phase 2 trials can advance promising regimens to phase 3 trials sooner and eliminate unfavorable regimens earlier and with a higher degree of confidence compared with PFS and ORR.

Design, setting, and participants

This simulated modeling study randomized phase 2 screening trials by resampling 1376 patients from 2 completed randomized phase 3 trials of ICIs. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to July 2020.

Exposures

Use of ICIs.

Main outcomes and measures

Restricted mean DOR, PFS, ORR, and OS were estimated and compared between groups. Three scenarios were considered: (1) significant differences in OS, PFS, and ORR; (2) significant differences in OS and noticeable differences in ORR but not PFS; and (3) no differences in OS, PFS, or ORR. For each setting, 5000 randomized phase 2 trials with different sample sizes were simulated, with additional censoring applied to mimic staggered accruals and ensure fair comparisons between different analysis methods. Probabilities of concluding positive phase 2 trials using PFS, ORR, and DOR were summarized and compared.

Results

The restricted mean DOR difference correctly estimated a positive OS benefit more frequently than did the ORR or PFS tests, across different sample sizes, significance levels, and censoring levels evaluated. When both OS and PFS differed, the ranges of true-positive or power rates were 79.2% to 98.7% for DOR, 56.3% to 93.2% for PFS, and 67.0% to 96.0% for ORR. When OS differed but PFS did not, the ranges of power rates were 24.0% to 76.0% for DOR, 3.0% to 19.0% for PFS, and 10.5% to 38.0% for ORR. When OS was similar, the false-positive rate of restricted mean DOR test was close to the chosen significance level.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that restricted mean DOR in randomized phase 2 trials is potentially more sensitive and useful than PFS and ORR in estimating the subsequent phase 3 conclusions and, thus, may be considered to complementarily facilitate decision-making in future clinical development.

SUBMITTER: Hu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164100 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolutionized the field of immuno-oncology and opened new avenues towards the development of novel assets to achieve durable immune control of cancer. Yet, the presence of tumor immune evasion mechanisms represents a challenge for the development of efficient treatment options. Therefore, combination therapies are taking the center of the stage in immuno-oncology. Such combination therapies should boost anti-tumor immune responses and/or target tumor immune escape mechanisms, especially those created by major players in the tumor microenvironment (TME) such as tumor-associated macrophages (TAM). Natural killer (NK) cells were recently positioned at the forefront of many immunotherapy strategies, and several new approaches are being designed to fully exploit NK cell antitumor potential. One of the most relevant NK cell-activating receptors is NKG2D, a receptor that recognizes 8 different NKG2D ligands (NKG2DL), including MICA and MICB. MICA and MICB are poorly expressed on normal cells but become upregulated on the surface of damaged, transformed or infected cells as a result of post-transcriptional or post-translational mechanisms and intracellular pathways. Their engagement of NKG2D triggers NK cell effector functions. Also, MICA/B are polymorphic and such polymorphism affects functional responses through regulation of their cell-surface expression, intracellular trafficking, shedding of soluble immunosuppressive isoforms, or the affinity of NKG2D interaction. Although immunotherapeutic approaches that target the NKG2D-NKG2DL axis are under investigation, several tumor immune escape mechanisms account for reduced cell surface expression of NKG2DL and contribute to tumor immune escape. Also, NKG2DL polymorphism determines functional NKG2D-dependent responses, thus representing an additional challenge for leveraging NKG2DL in immuno-oncology. In this review, we discuss strategies to boost MICA/B expression and/or inhibit their shedding and propose that combination strategies that target MICA/B with antibodies and strategies aimed at promoting their upregulation on tumor cells or at reprograming TAM into pro-inflammatory macrophages and remodeling of the TME, emerge as frontrunners in immuno-oncology because they may unleash the antitumor effector functions of NK cells and cytotoxic CD8 T cells (CTL). Pursuing several of these pipelines might lead to innovative modalities of immunotherapy for the treatment of a wide range of cancer patients.

Project description:Importance:Surrogate end points in oncology trade the advantage of reducing the time needed to conduct clinical trials for the disadvantage of greater uncertainty regarding the treatment effect on patient-centered end points, such as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Objective:To quantify the amount of time saved through the acceptance of surrogate end points, including response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective study of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology approvals and their drug registration trials based on actual publication analyzed the original and updated clinical trials data that led to FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2017 by using existing publications, conference abstracts, and package inserts from the FDA. Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, and third- or later-line treatment of advanced or metastatic disease), FDA approval type, end point basis for approval (RR, PFS, or OS/quality of life), sample size, accrual rate, and drug RR were extracted by March 23, 2018. All data were analyzed by July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcome was the study duration needed to complete the primary end point analysis used for each drug indication approval. This was estimated from reported enrollment dates, analysis cutoff dates, time to response, median duration of response, median PFS, and median OS. Results:In total, 188 distinct indications among 107 cancer drugs were identified. The RR was more often used for FDA approval in subsequent lines of therapy (17 of 71 drug indications [24%] in first-line therapy vs 34 of 77 drug indications [44%] in second-line therapy vs 19 of 24 drug indications [79%] in third- or later-line therapy, P < .001). Study duration for PFS (median, 31 [range, 10-104] months) was similar to that for OS (median, 33 [range, 12-117] months; P = .31), whereas study duration for RR (median, 25 [range, 11-54] months) was shorter than that for OS (P = .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with using OS, use of PFS as the end point was associated with study durations that were shorter by a mean of 11 months (95% CI, 5-17 months), and the use of RR as the end point was associated with study durations that were shorter by a mean of 19 months (95% CI, 13-25 months). Conclusions and Relevance:From the findings of this study, an estimated 11 months appeared to be needed (ie, approximately 12% longer in the drug development cycle) to assess the OS benefit of a cancer drug. This study's findings suggest that this must be weighed against the downside of increased uncertainty of clinical benefit arising from using surrogate end points.