Dataset Information

Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immune-Oncology Trials of Advanced Gastro-Esophageal Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to assess whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) could serve as surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in immune-oncology (IO) trials of advanced gastro-esophageal (GE) carcinoma.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IO that reported RECIST-based endpoints and OS in advanced GE carcinoma were screened. Surrogacy of endpoints for OS was assessed based on the correlation between endpoints with OS (arm-level), and between treatment effects on endpoints (trial-level). The correlations were quantified by Pearson correlation coefficient (R). Leave-one-out cross-validation was used to assess the prediction accuracy of surrogate model.

Results

Seventeen RCTs (9,657 subjects) with 20 comparisons were included. The correlations between DCR and OS were not strong at arm- (R = 0.80) and trial-levels (R = 0.45), but strong correlations between ORR (R = 0.91), PFS (R = 0.89) and OS at arm-level were observed. Treatment effect on ORR and PFS (both R = 0.71) was moderately correlated with treatment effect on OS. Leave-one-out cross-validation approach further validated the surrogacy of PFS. Our analysis showed that 3-month PFS could reliably predict 6-month OS, 6-month PFS could reliably predict 12-month OS, and 12-month PFS could reliably predict 18-month OS. The conservative minimum threshold effect of HR_PFS was 0.73.

Conclusions

PFS may be the appropriate surrogate for OS in IO trials of GE carcinoma. A conservative minimum threshold effect of HR_PFS ≤ 0.73 has the potential to predict a significant improvement in OS.

SUBMITTER: Li YF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9239497 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immune-Oncology Trials of Advanced Gastro-Esophageal Carcinoma.

Li Yuan Fang YF Wang Yun Y Zhou Jie J Wei Yi Cheng YC Lin Jun J Yin Yi Xin YX Chen Guo Ming GM Zhang Fei Yang FY Chen Shi S Zhou Zhi Wei ZW Chen Ying Bo YB Cong Nie Run R

World journal of oncology 20220616 3

<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to assess whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) could serve as surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in immune-oncology (IO) trials of advanced gastro-esophageal (GE) carcinoma.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IO that reported RECIST-based endpoints and OS in advanced GE carcinoma were screened. Surrogacy of endp ...[more]

PMID: 35837321

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOverall survival (OS) is the gold standard for the demonstration of a clinical benefit in cancer trials. Replacement of OS by a surrogate endpoint allows to reduce trial duration. To date, few surrogate endpoints have been validated in digestive oncology. The aim of this study was to draw up an ordered list of potential surrogate endpoints for OS in digestive cancer trials, by way of a survey among clinicians and methodologists. Secondary objective was to obtain their opinion on surrogacy and quality of life (QoL).MethodsIn 2007 and 2008, self administered sequential questionnaires were sent to a panel of French clinicians and methodologists involved in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In the first questionnaire, panellists were asked to choose the most important characteristics defining a surrogate among six proposals, to give advantages and drawbacks of the surrogates, and to answer questions about their validation and use. Then they had to suggest potential surrogate endpoints for OS in each of the following tumour sites: oesophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, biliary tract, lymphoma, colon, rectum, and anus. They finally gave their opinion on QoL as surrogate endpoint. In the second questionnaire, they had to classify the previously proposed candidate surrogates from the most (position #1) to the least relevant in their opinion.Frequency at which the endpoints were chosen as first, second or third most relevant surrogates was calculated and served as final ranking.ResultsResponse rate was 30% (24/80) in the first round and 20% (16/80) in the second one. Participants highlighted key points concerning surrogacy. In particular, they reminded that a surrogate endpoint is expected to predict clinical benefit in a well-defined therapeutic situation. Half of them thought it was not relevant to study QoL as surrogate for OS.DFS, in the neoadjuvant settings or early stages, and PFS, in the non operable or metastatic settings, were ranked first, with a frequency of more than 69% in 20 out of 22 settings. PFS was proposed in association with QoL in metastatic primary liver and stomach cancers (both 81%). This composite endpoint was ranked second in metastatic oesophageal (69%), colorectal (56%) and anal (56%) cancers, whereas QoL alone was also suggested in most metastatic situations.Other endpoints frequently suggested were R0 resection in the neoadjuvant settings (oesophagus (69%), stomach (56%), pancreas (75%) and biliary tract (63%)) and response. An unexpected endpoint was metastatic PFS in non operable oesophageal (31%) and pancreatic (44%) cancers. Quality and results of surgical procedures like sphincter preservation were also cited as eligible surrogate endpoints in rectal (19%) and anal (50% in case of localized disease) cancers. Except for alpha-FP kinetic in hepatocellular carcinoma (13%) and CA19-9 decline (6%) in pancreas, few endpoints based on biological or tumour markers were proposed.ConclusionThe overall results should help prioritise the endpoints to be statistically evaluated as surrogate for OS, so that trialists and clinicians can rely on endpoints that ensure relevant clinical benefit to the patient.

Project description:BackgroundRecent phase 3 trials have shown an overall survival benefit in metastatic melanoma. We aimed to assess whether progression-free survival (PFS) could be regarded as a reliable surrogate for overall survival through a meta-analysis of randomised trials.MethodsWe systematically reviewed randomised trials comparing treatment regimens in metastatic melanoma that included dacarbazine as the control arm, and which reported both PFS and overall survival with a standard hazard ratio (HR). We correlated HRs for overall survival and PFS, weighted by sample size or by precision of the HR estimate, assuming fixed and random effects. We did sensitivity analyses according to presence of crossover, trial size, and dacarbazine dose.FindingsAfter screening 1649 reports and meeting abstracts published before Sept 8, 2013, we identified 12 eligible randomised trials that enrolled 4416 patients with metastatic melanoma. Irrespective of weighting strategy, we noted a strong correlation between the treatment effects for PFS and overall survival, which seemed independent of treatment type. Pearson correlation coefficients were 0·71 (95% CI 0·29-0·90) with a random-effects assumption, 0·85 (0·59-0·95) with a fixed-effects assumption, and 0·89 (0·68-0·97) with sample-size weighting. For nine trials without crossover, the correlation coefficient was 0·96 (0·81-0·99), which decreased to 0·93 (0·74-0·98) when two additional trials with less than 50% crossover were included. Inclusion of mature follow-up data after at least 50% crossover (in vemurafenib and dabrafenib phase 3 trials) weakened the PFS to overall survival correlation (0·55, 0·03-0·84). Inclusion of trials with no or little crossover with the random-effects assumption yielded a conservative statement of the PFS to overall survival correlation of 0·85 (0·51-0·96).InterpretationPFS can be regarded as a robust surrogate for overall survival in dacarbazine-controlled randomised trials of metastatic melanoma; we postulate that this association will hold as treatment standards evolve and are adopted as the control arm in future trials.FundingNone.

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.

Dataset Information

Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immune-Oncology Trials of Advanced Gastro-Esophageal Carcinoma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Immune-Oncology Trials of Advanced Gastro-Esophageal Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets