Dataset Information

Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for disease-free survival and overall survival in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and Scopus to 1 December 2020.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Randomised clinical trials that tested neoadjuvant chemotherapy given alone or combined with other treatments, including anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 (anti-HER2) drugs, targeted treatments, antivascular agents, bisphosphonates, and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Data extraction and synthesis

Trial level associations between the surrogate endpoint pathological complete response and disease-free survival and overall survival.

Methods

A weighted regression analysis was performed on log transformed treatment effect estimates (hazard ratio for disease-free survival and overall survival and relative risk for pathological complete response), and the coefficient of determination (R²) was used to quantify the association. The secondary objective was to explore heterogeneity of results in preplanned subgroups analysis, stratifying trials according treatment type in the experimental arm, definition used for pathological complete response (breast and lymph nodes v breast only), and biological features of the disease (HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer). The surrogate threshold effect was also evaluated, indicating the minimum value of the relative risk for pathological complete response necessary to confidently predict a non-null effect on hazard ratio for disease-free survival or overall survival.

Results

54 randomised clinical trials comprising a total of 32 611 patients were included in the analysis. A weak association was observed between the log(relative risk) for pathological complete response and log(hazard ratio) for both disease-free survival (R²=0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.29) and overall survival (R² =0.08, 0.00 to 0.22). Similar results were found across all subgroups evaluated, independently of the definition used for pathological complete response, treatment type in the experimental arm, and biological features of the disease. The surrogate threshold effect was 5.19 for disease-free survival but was not estimable for overall survival. Consistent results were confirmed in three sensitivity analyses: excluding small trials (<200 patients enrolled), excluding trials with short median follow-up (<24 months), and replacing the relative risk for pathological complete response with the absolute difference of pathological complete response rates between treatment arms.

Conclusion

A lack of surrogacy of pathological complete response was identified at trial level for both disease-free survival and overall survival. The findings suggest that pathological complete response should not be used as primary endpoint in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Conforti F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRobust identification of surrogate endpoints can help accelerate the development of pharmacotherapies for diseases traditionally evaluated using true endpoints associated with prolonged follow-up. The meta-analysis-based surrogate endpoint evaluation (SEE) integrates data from multiple, usually smaller, trials to statistically confirm a surrogate endpoint as a robust proxy for the true endpoint. To test the applicability of SEE when only a single, larger trial is available, we analysed the cardiovascular (CV) survival endpoint from the large multinational trial LEADER (9340 subjects) that confirmed the CV safety of a diabetes drug (liraglutide). We evaluated if using country as a trial unit adequately facilitated the meta-analysis and calculation of R2 by country group.MethodsData were grouped by country, ensuring at least 30 CV deaths (497 in total) in each of the nine resulting by-country groups. In a two-step SEE on the grouped dataset, we first fitted the group-specific Cox proportional hazard models; next, on the trial-level, we regressed the estimated hazard ratio (HR; liraglutide vs placebo) of the true endpoints (CV death: 497 events, or all-cause death: 828 events) on the HR of the surrogate endpoint (major CV adverse event [MACE]: 1302 events) and derived the group-specific R2 and its 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsGroup-level surrogacy of MACE was supported for CV death but not for all-cause death, with [Formula: see text] values of 0.85 [0.63;1.00]95% CI and 0.23 [0.00;0.67]95% CI, respectively. Sensitivity analyses using different grouping approaches (e.g. grouping by region) corroborated the robustness of the conclusions as well as the appropriateness of the data-grouping approaches.ConclusionsWe derived a specific grouping approach to successfully apply SEE on data from a single trial. This may allow for the statistically robust identification and validation of surrogate endpoints based on the abundance of large monolithic outcome trials conducted as part of drug development programmes in, for example, diabetes.