A Systematic Review and Recommendation for Reporting of Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Using Meta-analyses

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

Evaluation of Major Pathologic Response and Pathologic Complete Response as Surrogate End Points for Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Resectable in NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Controversy remains as to whether pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) represent surrogate end points for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant trials for resectable NSCLC.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and archives of international conference abstracts was performed from June 2017 through October 31, 2023. Studies incorporating a neoadjuvant arm with immune checkpoint blockade alone or in combination with chemotherapy were included. Those not providing information regarding pCR, MPR, EFS, or OS were excluded. For trial-level surrogacy, log ORs for pCR and MPR and log hazard ratios for EFS and OS were analyzed using a linear regression model weighted by sample size. The regression coefficient and R2 with 95% confidence interval were calculated by the bootstrapping approach.

RESULTS

Seven randomized clinical trials were identified for a total of 2385 patients. At the patient level, the R2 of pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS were 0.82 (0.66-0.94) and 0.81 (0.63-0.93), respectively. The OR of 2-year EFS rates by response status was 0.12 (0.07-0.19) and 0.11 (0.05-0.22), respectively. For the 2-year OS, the R2 of pCR and MPR were 0.55 (0.09-0.98) and 0.52 (0.10-0.96), respectively. At the trial level, the R2 for the association of OR for response and HR for EFS was 0.58 (0.00-0.97) and 0.61 (0.00-0.97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses reveal a robust correlation between pCR and MPR with 2-year EFS but not OS. Trial-level surrogacy was moderate but imprecise. More mature follow-up and data to assess the impact of study crossover are needed.

Association of pathological response with long-term survival outcomes after neoadjuvant immunotherapy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete pathological response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR) have been proven to have a close association with improved event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients accepting chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. However, further study focusing on neoadjuvant immunotherapy is limited. Here we provided an updated and comprehensive evaluation of the association between pathological response and long-term survival outcomes at patient level and trial level for neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

METHODS

We systematically searched and assessed studies in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference abstracts from inception to June 1, 2023. Studies reported EFS/OS results by pCR/MPR status were eligible.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies comprising a total of 4100 patients were eligible for the analysis, which included 39 studies for the patient-level analysis and 5 randomized controlled trials for the trial-level analysis. Our results highlighted that pCR was associated with improved EFS (HR, 0.48 [95 % CI, 0.39-0.60]) and OS (HR, 0.55 [95 % CI, 0.41-0.74]). The magnitude of HRs by MPR status were similar to the results by pCR status (EFS HR, 0.31 [95 % CI, 0.18-0.53]) and OS HR, 0.43 [95 % CI, 0.19-0.96]). However, no association between pCR and EFS at trial level was found (P = 0.8, R2 = 0).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrates a strong association between pathological response and long-term survival outcomes at patient level across studies applying neoadjuvant immunotherapy in most solid tumors but we fail to validate the relationship at trial level. Therefore, an accepted surrogate endpoint applied to both patient and trial levels are waited for further search.

Measurable Residual Disease and Decision-Making in Multiple Myeloma

Measurable (minimal) residual disease (MRD) has already proven to be one of the most important prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM). Each improvement in the depth of MRD testing has led to superior discrimination of outcomes, and sustained MRD negativity seems to be paramount to durable responses. Peripheral blood assays to assess for MRD are still under investigation but hold promise as complementary tools to bone marrow MRD assays such as next-generation sequencing and flow cytometry. Herein, the authors explore the evidence and potential benefits and drawbacks of MRD-adapted clinical decision-making in MM.

Intermediate clinical endpoints in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of individual patient data from the Gruppo Italiano Mammella and Mammella Intergruppo trials

Background

Intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) are frequently used as primary endpoint in randomised trials (RCTs). We aim to assess whether changes in different ICEs can be used to predict changes in overall survival (OS) in adjuvant breast cancer trials.

Methods

Individual patient level data from adjuvant phase III RCTs conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) and Mammella Intergruppo (MIG) study groups were used. ICEs were computed according to STEEP criteria. Using a two-stage meta-analytic model, we assessed the surrogacy of each ICE at both the outcome (i.e., OS and ICE are correlated irrespective of treatment) and trial (i.e., treatment effects on ICE and treatment effect on OS are correlated) levels. The following ICEs were considered as potential surrogate endpoints of OS: disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), and invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS). The estimates of the degree of correlation were obtained by copula models and weighted linear regression. Kendall's τ and R2 ≥ 0.70 were considered as indicators of a clinically relevant surrogacy.

Findings

Among the 12,397 patients enrolled from November 1992 to July 2012 in six RCTs, median age at enrolment was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR) 49-65). After a median follow-up of 10.3 years (IQR 6.4-14.5), 2131 (17.2%) OS events were observed, with 1390 (65.2%) attributed to breast cancer. At the outcome-level, Kendall's τ ranged from 0.69 for BCFI to 0.84 for DRFS. For DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, BCFI, and IBCFS endpoints, over 95% of the 8-year OS variability was attributable to the variation of the 5-year ICE. At the trial-level, treatment effects for the different ICEs and OS were strongly correlated, with the highest correlation for RFS and DRFS and the lowest for BCFI.

Interpretation

Our results provide evidence supporting the use of DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, and IBCFS as primary endpoint in breast cancer adjuvant trials.

Funding

This analysis was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research ("Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro", AIRC; IG 2017/20760) and by Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds (years 2021-2022).

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials.

METHODS

We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE).

RESULTS

IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increased incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers has motivated efforts to optimise treatment for these patients with excellent prognosis. Validation of surrogates for overall survival could expedite the investigation of new therapies. We sought to evaluate candidate intermediate clinical endpoints in trials assessing definitive treatment of p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer with chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

METHODS

We did a retrospective review of five multicentre, randomised trials (NRG/RTOG 9003, 0129, 0234, 0522, and 1016) that tested radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients (aged ≥18 years) with p16-positive localised head or neck squamous-cell carcinomas. Eight intermediate clinical endpoints were considered as potential surrogates for overall survival: freedom from local progression, freedom from regional progression, freedom from distant metastasis, freedom from locoregional progression, freedom from any progression, locoregional progression-free survival, progression-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. We used a two-stage meta-analytical framework, which requires high correlation between the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival at the patient level (condition 1), and high correlation between the treatment effect on the intermediate clinical endpoint and the treatment effect on overall survival (condition 2). For both, an r2 greater than 0·7 was used as criteria for clinically relevant surrogacy.

FINDINGS

We analysed 1373 patients with oropharyngeal cancer from May 9, 2020, to Nov 22, 2023. 1231 (90%) of patients were men, 142 (10%) were women, and 1207 (88%) were White, with a median age of 57 years (IQR 51-62). Median follow-up was 4·2 years (3·1-5·1). For the first condition, correlating the intermediate clinical endpoints with overall survival at the individual and trial level, the three composite endpoints of locoregional progression-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·91 and r2 0·72), distant metastasis-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·93 and r2 0·83), and progression-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·88 and r2 0·70) were highly correlated with overall survival at the patient level and at the trial-group level. For the second condition, correlating treatment effects of the intermediate clinical endpoints and overall survival, the composite endpoints of locoregional progression-free survival (r2 0·88), distant metastasis-free survival (r2 0·96), and progression-free survival (r2 0·92) remained strong surrogates. Treatment effects on the remaining intermediate clinical endpoints were less strongly correlated with overall survival.

INTERPRETATION

We identified locoregional progression-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and progression-free survival as surrogates for overall survival in p16-positive oropharyngeal cancers treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, which could serve as clinical trial endpoints.

FUNDING

NRG Oncology Operations, NRG Oncology SDMC, the National Cancer Institute, Eli Lilly, Aventis, and the University of Michigan.

Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) and investigate the correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival (OS). A systematic literature search included phase I, II, and III clinical trials comparing ICIs to placebo or other therapies for uHCC treatment. Correlations between OS and surrogate endpoints were evaluated using meta-regression analyses and calculating the surrogate threshold effect (STE). The correlation analysis showed a weak association between OS and progression-free survival (PFS), with an R2 value of 0.352 (95% CI: 0.000-0.967). However, complete response (CR) exhibited a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.905, 95% CI: 0.728-1.000). Subgroup analyses revealed high correlations between OS and PFS, CR, stable disease (SD), and DC in phase III trials (R2: 0.827-0.922). For the ICI + IA group, significant correlations were observed between OS and SD, progressive disease (PD), and grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (R2: 0.713-0.969). Analyses of the correlation between survival benefit and risk of mortality across various time points showed a strong association within the first year (R2: 0.724-0.868) but a weak association beyond one year (R2: 0.406-0.499). In ICI trials for uHCC, PFS has limited utility as a surrogate endpoint for OS, while CR exhibits a strong correlation with OS. Subgroup analyses highlight high correlations between OS and PFS, SD, and DC in phase III trials. Notably, the ICI + IA group shows significant associations between OS and SD, PD, and grade 3-5 irAEs. These findings offer valuable insights for interpreting trial outcomes and selecting appropriate endpoints in future clinical studies involving ICIs for uHCC patients.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in randomized clinical trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

There is debate on which are the best surrogate endpoint and metric to capture treatment effect on overall survival (OS) in RCTs testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods

We systematically searched for RCTs testing ICIs in patients with advanced solid tumors. Inclusion criteria were: RCTs i) assessing PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors either as monotherapy or in combination with another ICI, and/or targeted therapy, and/or chemotherapy, in patients with advanced solid tumors; ii) randomizing at least 100 patients. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the surrogacy value of PFS and modified-PFS (mPFS) for OS in RCTs testing ICIs, when the treatment effect is measured by the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, and by the HR and the ratio of restricted mean survival time (rRMST) for PFS and mPFS.

Results

61 RCTs (67 treatment comparisons and 36,034 patients) were included in the analysis. In comparisons testing ICI plus chemotherapy, HRPFS and HRmPFS both had a strong surrogacy value (R2 = 0.74 and R2 = 0.81, respectively). In comparisons testing ICI as monotherapy, HRPFS was the best surrogate, although having a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.58). In comparisons testing ICI plus other treatment(s), the associations were very weak for all the surrogate endpoints and treatment effect measures, with R2 ranging from 0.01 to 0.22.

Conclusion

In RCTs testing ICIs, the value of potential surrogates for HROS was strongly affected by the type of treatment(s) tested. The evidence available supports HRPFS as the best surrogate, and disproves the use of alternative endpoints, such as the mPFS, or treatment effect measures, such as the RMST.

Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcomes as a surrogate of overall survival: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall survival is the optimal marker of treatment efficacy in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) but can take considerable time to mature. Progression-free survival (PFS) has served as an early surrogate of overall survival but is imperfect. Time to deterioration in quality of life (QOL) measures could be a surrogate for overall survival.

METHODS

Phase 3 RCTs in solid malignancies that reported overall survival, PFS, and time to deterioration in QOL or physical function published between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022, were evaluated. Weighted regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between PFS, time to deterioration in QOL, and time to deterioration in physical function with overall survival. The coefficient of determination (R2) was used to quantify surrogacy.

RESULTS

In total, 138 phase 3 RCTs were included. Of these, 47 trials evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors and 91 investigated non-immune checkpoint inhibitor agents. Time to deterioration in QOL (137 RCTs) and time to deterioration in physical function (75 RCTs) performed similarly to PFS as surrogates for overall survival (R2 = 0.18 vs R2 = 0.19 and R2 = 0.10 vs R2 = 0.09, respectively). For immune checkpoint inhibitor studies, time to deterioration in physical function had a higher association with overall survival than with PFS (R2 = 0.38 vs R2 = 0.19), and PFS and time to deterioration in physical function did not correlate with each other (R2 = 0). When time to deterioration in physical function and PFS are used together, the coefficient of determination increased (R2 = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Time to deterioration in physical function appears to be an overall survival surrogate measure of particular importance for immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment efficacy. The combination of time to deterioration in physical function with PFS may enable better prediction of overall survival treatment benefit in RCTs of immune checkpoint inhibitors than either PFS or time to deterioration in physical function alone.

Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) have a variable prognosis, and the development of more effective treatment strategies is an important research topic. Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard for research endpoints in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but observing an OS benefit requires the inclusion of a large number of patients and a long follow-up period. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) could be used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in locally advanced or metastatic DTC clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a search in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to include all RCTs of locally advanced or metastatic DTC and extracted survival data. A weighted linear regression analysis was performed to explore the correlation between PFS benefit and OS benefit by taking the logarithm of the hazard ratios (HRs) of PFS and OS for each trial with a base of 10 and weighted by the number of patients in each RCT.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs, including 1410 patients, were included. At the trial level, PFS benefit was weakly correlated with OS benefit (R2 = 0.210, 95% CI: 0.000-0.811) and did not meet the statistical criteria for the surrogate endpoint.

CONCLUSION

This study does not support PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in locally advanced or metastatic DTC clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022334898.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE

The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background

Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials.

Methods

As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials.

Findings

Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators.

Interpretation

There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence.

Funding

SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Validity of Using Pathological Response as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Neoadjuvant Studies for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological response is a critical factor in predicting long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative therapy. However, the validity of using pathological response as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for esophageal cancer has not yet been established. In this study, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pathological response as a proxy endpoint for survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies investigating neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. The correlation between pathological complete response (pCR) and OS were assessed using a weighted multiple regression analysis at the trial level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated. The research design and histological subtypes were considered in the performance of subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 40 trials, comprising 43 comparisons and 55,344 patients were qualified. The surrogacy between pCR and OS was moderate (R2 = 0.238 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.500 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.541 in log settings). pCR could not serve as an ideal surrogate endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (R2 = 0.511 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.460 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.523 in log settings). A strong correlation was observed in studies comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (R2 = 0.595 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.840 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.800 in log settings).

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of surrogacy of pathological response for long-term survival at trial level is established in this study. Hence, caution should be exercised when using pCR as the primary endpoint in neoadjuvant studies for esophageal cancer.

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC.

Evaluating relapse-free survival as an endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant immunotherapy trials

BACKGROUND

Relapse-free survival (RFS) has been considered a primary endpoint to assess the effects of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting among patients with early-stage disease. However, it is not clear whether RFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in this clinical context.

METHODS

Phase II or III clinical trials of adjuvant immunotherapy that reported hazard ratios on OS and RFS were identified. We used a weighted regression analysis at the arm and trial levels to assess the efficacy of RFS as a surrogate for OS, quantified by the weighted coefficient of determination (R2). Strong correlations (R2 ≥ 0.7) at the arm and trial levels indicated valid surrogacy. The surrogate threshold effect was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifteen high-quality randomized clinical trials involving 13 715 patients were included. At the arm level, moderate and strong associations were observed between RFS2-year and OS3-year (R2 = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25 to 0.92) and RFS3-year and OS5-year (R2 = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.00), respectively. At the trial level, a moderate association was observed between effect of treatment on RFS and OS (R2 = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.94). The surrogate threshold effect for RFS was 0.86. Consistent results were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses based on different trial phases, experimental arms, cancer types, and treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis failed to find a clinically strong association between RFS and OS in randomized clinical trials of adjuvant immunotherapy. Our findings challenge the use of RFS as the primary efficacy endpoint and suggest the use of OS in this clinical context.

Intermediate endpoints as surrogates for outcomes in cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 trials

Background

Cancer immunotherapy shows unique efficacy kinetics that differs from conventional treatment. These characteristics may lead to the prolongation of trial duration, hence reliable surrogate endpoints are urgently needed. We aimed to systematically evaluate the study-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in cancer immunotherapy.

Methods

We searched the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, between database inception and October 18, 2022, for phase 3 randomised trials investigating the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. An updated search was done on July, 15, 2023. No language restrictions were used. Eligible trials had to set overall survival (OS) as the primary or co-primary endpoint and report at least one intermediate clinical endpoint including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival. Other key inclusion and exclusion criteria included: (1) adult patients (>18 years old) with advanced solid tumour; (2) no immunotherapy conducted in the control arms; (3) follow-up is long enough to achieve OS; (4) data should be public available. A two-stage meta-analytic approach was conducted to evaluate the magnitude of the association between these intermediate endpoints and OS. A surrogate was identified if the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.7 or greater. Leave-one-out cross-validation and pre-defined subgroup analysis were conducted to examine the heterogeneity. Potential publication bias was evaluated using the Egger's and Begg's tests. This trial was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022381648.

Findings

52,342 patients with 15 types of tumours from 77 phase 3 studies were included. ORR (R2 = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.00-0.24), DCR (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.01), and PFS (R2 = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56) showed weak associations with OS. However, a strong correlation was observed between 1-year survival and clinical outcome (R2 = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83). These associations remained relatively consistent across pre-defined subgroups stratified based on tumour types, masking methods, line of treatments, drug targets, treatment strategies, and follow-up durations. No significant heterogeneities or publication bias were identified.

Interpretation

1-year milestone survival was the only identified surrogacy endpoint for outcomes in cancer immunotherapy. Ongoing investigations and development of new endpoints and incorporation of biomarkers are needed to identify potential surrogate markers that can be more robust than 1-year survival. This work may provide important references in assisting the design and interpretation of future clinical trials, and constitute complementary information in drafting clinical practice guidelines.

Funding

None.

Early Endpoints in High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of Three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Phase 3 Studies

BACKGROUND

Early endpoints in clinical trials of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) that resemble those monitored in real-world practice could expedite clinical development.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence (PSA-R)-based early endpoints with metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer (PC)-specific survival (PCSS), and to identify clinically undetectable disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A post hoc analysis of patients with HRLPC from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group studies 9202, 9902, and 0521 was performed.

INTERVENTION

Long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and post-primary definitive radiotherapy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Event-free survival (EFS; PSA-R, locoregional recurrence [LRR], distant metastasis [DM], or death), biochemical failure (PSA-R), general clinical failure (PSA-R, LRR, DM, ADT initiation, or death), and no evidence of disease (NED; alive patients without PSA-R, LRR, DM, and subsequent PC therapy, and with testosterone recovery) were assessed for association with MFS, OS, and PCSS using correlation and landmark analyses, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional-hazard model. PSA-R was defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml; PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising; PSA >5, 10, and 25 ng/ml; or PSA doubling time (PSADT) <6 mo.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among assessed early endpoints, EFS with PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising, or with PSA >5 ng/ml was associated with MFS, OS, and PCSS. No development of EFS with PSADT <6 mo or ADT initiation event or achievement of NED at 3 yr was associated with prolonged OS, MFS, and PCSS (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.53 [0.45-0.64], 0.63 [0.52-0.76], and 0.26 [0.18-0.36], or 0.56 [0.48-0.66], 0.62 [0.52-0.74], and 0.26 [0.19-0.37]) after the landmark time. Older studies performed before the current guidance should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified EFS with PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising, PSA >5 ng/ml, or PSADT <6 mo ± ADT initiation and NED as potentially promising early endpoints in HRLPC that should be validated further.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We identified novel clinical measures that may expedite the development of new medicines for patients with localized prostate cancer at a high risk of progression. These measures, which took into account prostate-specific antigen assessments and other clinical characteristics, should be confirmed in future studies. We also defined a novel measure of no evidence of disease that can help treating physicians identify patients with clinically undetectable disease.

Systematic review of time to subsequent therapy as a candidate surrogate endpoint in advanced solid tumors

Aim: Time to subsequent therapy (TST) is an end point that may complement progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in determining the treatment effect of anticancer drugs and may be a potential surrogate for PFS and OS. We systematically reviewed the correlation between TST and both PFS and OS in published phase 2/3 studies in advanced solid tumors. Materials & methods: Trial-level correlational analyses were performed for TST versus PFS (by investigator and/or central review) and TST versus OS. Results: Of 21 included studies, nine (43%) used 'time to first subsequent therapy or death' (TFST) as the TST end point; 11 (57%) used different definitions ('other TST end points'). There was a strong correlation between TFST and PFS by investigator (medians: R2 = 0.88; hazard ratio [HR]: R2 = 0.91) and TFST versus PFS by central review (medians: R2 = 0.86; HRs: R2 = 0.84). For TFST versus OS there was medium/poor correlation for medians (R2 = 0.64) and HRs (R2 = 0.02). Conclusion: TFST strongly correlates with PFS, but not with OS.

Association between event-free survival and overall survival after neoadjuvant treatment for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We wanted to evaluate if event-free survival (EFS) is a reliable surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (r-NSCLC) receiving neoadjuvant therapy. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the statistical association between EFS and OS.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched on 30 July 2021 to identify sources reporting both EFS and OS data in patients with stage I-IIIB r-NSCLC receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Correlation and regression analyses evaluated the association between the effect of treatment on EFS and OS using log-hazard ratios (HRs). Sources in which the entire population had epidermal growth factor receptor mutations were excluded from the analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 74 sources, of which 8 reported EFS and OS HRs from randomized controlled trials. Based on these, we found a positive linear correlation and a strong association between EFS and OS log-HRs (weighted Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.864; 95% confidence interval 0.809-0.992; P = 0.006; random-effects meta-regression, R2 = 0.777).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a strong association between treatment effects for EFS and OS, indicating that improvements in EFS are likely to be predictive of improvements in OS. EFS may therefore be a reliable surrogate for OS after neoadjuvant therapy in r-NSCLC.

Assessment of Nonfatal Bleeding Events as a Surrogate for Mortality in Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Bleeding events are frequently applied as safety end points for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of antithrombotic agents in patients with coronary artery disease. However, whether a bleeding event is a valid surrogate for death remain uncertain.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the correlation between the treatment effect on bleeding events and mortality.

Methods

Multiple databases were searched to identify RCTs studying antithrombotic agents for patients with coronary artery disease through August 2022. Major and minor bleeding events were defined in included trials, mostly defined with BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) or TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) criteria. Trial-level correlations between nonfatal bleeding events and mortality were assessed. We performed subgroup analyses by the definitions of bleeding (BARC vs TIMI criteria), study year, and follow-up duration. We used a cutoff with a lower limit of 95% confidence interval of R2 >0.72 as a strong correlation and with an upper limit of 95% confidence interval of R2 <0.50 as a weak correlation.

Results

A total of 48 RCTs with 181,951 participants were analyzed. Overall, trial-level R2 for major and minor bleeding were 0.09 (95% CI: 0.00-0.26) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.00-0.27) for all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. When confined to major bleeding, R2 were 0.03 (95% CI: 0.00-0.13) and 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.05), respectively. All of the subgroup analyses did not show any significant correlations.

Conclusions

We demonstrated a trial-defined bleeding event may not be a valid surrogate for mortality in RCTs investigating the effect of antithrombotic agents for coronary artery disease.

Meta-Analysis of Candidate Surrogate End Points in Advanced Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) working group identified metastasis-free survival as a valid surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) for patients with localized prostate cancer. No comparably validated surrogate end points exist in advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for trials in advanced prostate cancer, defined as node-positive, metastatic castration-sensitive, nonmetastatic, or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eligible randomized trials reported OS and one or more intermediate clinical end points, including biochemical failure (BF), clinical failure, biochemical failure–free survival (BFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic PFS. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed by using the second condition of the meta-analytic approach; R2 was weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical end point hazard ratio and defined as R2>0.70. RESULTS: A total of 143 randomized trials (n=75,601 patients) were included. No candidate end points met the criteria for surrogacy (R2 BF [n=28,922], 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18 to 0.64]; BFS [n=25,741], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73]; clinical failure [n=22,616], 0.31 [95% CI, 0.075 to 0.56]; PFS [n=52,639], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63]; and radiographic PFS [n=52,548], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63]). Within preplanned subgroups according to castration-sensitive or castration-resistant disease or according to treatment type, neither BFS nor PFS consistently met criteria for surrogacy. Sensitivity analyses showed that candidacy for surrogacy of all end points tested did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our aggregate screening method for surrogate end points in advanced prostate cancer showed that commonly used clinical end points are not clear valid surrogate end points for OS. (Funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the National Cancer Institute.)

Immune-related adverse events as potential surrogates of immune checkpoint inhibitors' efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies

BACKGROUND

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are frequently reported during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy and are associated with long-term outcomes. It is unknown if the irAE occurrence is a valid surrogate of ICIs' efficacy.

METHODS

We identified articles reporting the results of randomized trials of experimental ICI therapy in solid tumors with a systematic search. The control arms could be placebo, cytotoxic/targeted therapy, or ICI therapy. We extracted the hazard ratios for overall survival (OS) with the number of OS events per arm and the number and percentages of overall and specific irAEs of grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 per arm. We estimated the treatment effect on the potential surrogate outcome with the odds ratio of the irAE rate between the experimental and the control arm. The statistical analysis consisted of weighted linear regression on a logarithmic scale between treatment effects on irAE rate and treatment effects on OS.

RESULTS

Sixty-two randomized trials were included for a total of 79 contrasts and 42 247 patients. The analyses found no significant association between the treatment effects for overall grade 1-2 or grade 3-4 irAE rates or specific (skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine) irAE rates. In the non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trial subset, we observed a negative association between treatment effects on overall grade 1-2 irAEs and treatment effects on OS in studies with patients selected for programmed death-ligand 1 expression (R² = 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.95; R = -0.69). In the melanoma trial subset, a negative association was shown between treatment effects on gastrointestinal grade 3-4 irAEs and treatment effects on OS in trials without an ICI-based control arm (R² = 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.99; R = -0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

We found low-strength correlations between the ICI therapy effects on overall or specific irAE rates and the treatment effects on OS in several cancer types.

Association of Minimal Residual Disease Negativity Rates With Progression Free Survival in Frontline Therapy Trials for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-analysis

Current frontline therapies for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients have significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). This has led to interest in minimal residual disease negativity (MRDng) as an efficacy-response biomarker and possible surrogate endpoint. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the surrogacy of MRD for PFS and quantify the relationship between MRDng rates and PFS at the trial level. A systematic search was conducted on phase II and III trials reporting MRDng rates along with median PFS (mPFS) or PFS hazard ratios (HR). Weighted linear regressions were conducted relating mPFS to MRDng rates, and relating PFS HRs to either odds ratios (OR) or rate differences (RD) for MRDng in comparative trials. A total of 14 trials were available for the mPFS analysis. log(MRDng rate) was moderately associated with log (mPFS), with a slope of β = 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26-0.48) and R² = 0.62. A total of 13 trials were available for the PFS HR analysis. Treatment effects on MRDng rates were correlated with the corresponding effects on PFS: log (PFS HR) and log (MRDng OR) had a moderate association with β = -0.36 (95% CI, -0.56 to -0.17) and R² = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21-0.77); log (PFS HR) and the MRDng RD had a stronger association with slope β = -0.03 (95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02) and R² = 0.67 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.86). MRDng rates moderately associate with PFS outcomes. MRDng RDs are more strongly associated with HRs than MRDng ORs, with evidence suggestive of potential surrogacy.

Evaluation of heart failure admission as a surrogate for mortality in randomized clinical trials: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) admission is used as a study endpoint in clinical trials. However, it remains unclear whether it can be a valid surrogate endpoint for mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To validate whether HF admission is a valid surrogate for mortality.

METHODS

In PubMed and EMBASE, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to treat patients with heart failure at the enrolment were searched on 13 April 2022. We extracted RCTs in which event numbers of both HF admission and all-cause mortality were reported as either primary or secondary outcomes. Trial-level correlations (R-squared) between HF admission and mortality were assessed. We performed subgroup analyses by study year, follow-up duration, baseline HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and whether the intervention was pharmacological. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

RESULTS

A total of 117 RCTs met the criteria for inclusion. Overall, the trial-level R-squared between HF admission and all-cause mortality was 0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26 to 0.53). However, in the subgroup analyses, the trial-level R-squared was increased when the follow-up duration was ≥24 months (0.70 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), when intervention was pharmacological (0.51 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.68]) and when the baseline HF type was HFrEF (0.57 [95% CI: 0.42, 0.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that HF admission may not always be a valid surrogate for mortality in patients with HF. Rather, the surrogacy of HF admission may be dependent on clinical background and interventions.

Surrogate endpoints in trials: a call for better reporting

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

Surrogacy analysis of intermediate end-points for overall survival in randomized controlled trials of rhabdomyosarcoma

Treatment of malignant tumors, such as rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), can improve overall survival (OS). It is time-consuming and expensive for patients to obtain benefits from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with OS as the primary end-point. Therefore, another surrogate end-point is necessary; however, there is no report on the surrogacy analysis of RMS. In this study, we performed a systematic review of RCTs, involving patients with newly diagnosed RMS, and 11 RCTs were identified. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the surrogacy of intermediate end-points for OS. The correlations between surrogate end-points and OS were investigated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ). The coefficient of determination (R²) was employed to measure the strength of the association. A total of 5183 patients were randomly allocated to 34 treatment groups. A marginal correlation (R² = 0.281, ρ = 0.445) between the hazard ratios (HRs) for event-free survival (EFS) and OS was observed. In patients with localized RMS, the EFS HR had a weaker correlation with OS HR in the sensitivity analysis than that in the primary analysis. Overall, the surrogacy of EFS for OS cannot be confirmed.

Surrogacy of Pathologic Complete Response in Trials of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: Critical Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Misinterpretations

Importance

The pathologic complete response (pCR) is supported by regulatory agencies as a surrogate end point for long-term patients' clinical outcomes in the accelerated approval process of new drugs tested in neoadjuvant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for early breast cancer (BC). However, a meaningful association between pCR and patients' survival has been proven only at the patient level (ie, significantly better survival of patients who achieved pCR compared with those who did not), but not at trial level (ie, poor association between degree of improvement in pCR rate and survival reported across trials).

Observations

We critically discuss the potential reasons of such discrepancy between pCR surrogacy value at the patient and trial level, as well as the relevant implications for both clinical research and drug regulatory policy. We also describe alternative surrogate end points, including combined end points that jointly analyzed pathological response and event-free survival data, or the assessment of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Such proposed surrogate end points could overcome limits of pCR and provide a reasonable trade-off between the 2 conflicting needs to have access to effective therapies rapidly, and to reliably assess patients' clinical benefit.

Conclusions and Relevance

Using surrogate end points to grant drug approvals is justified only when they can provide accurate prediction of a drug's effect on the long-term patient outcomes. Evidence currently available does not support pCR used alone as a reliable surrogate end point in regulatory neoadjuvant RCTs for BC. The surrogacy value at trial level of potentially more robust surrogate end points needs to be urgently tested.

Systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: learning from the past to build the future

The treatment of breast cancer has improved dramatically over the past century, from a strictly surgical approach to a coordinated one, including local and systemic therapies. Systemic therapies for early-stage disease were initially tested against observation or placebo only in adjuvant trials. Subsequent clinical trials focusing on treatment ‘fine-tuning’ had a marked increase in cohort size, duration and costs, leading to a growing interest in the neoadjuvant setting in the past decade. Neoadjuvant trial designs have the advantages of enabling the direct evaluation of treatment effects on tumour diameter and offer unique translational research opportunities through the comparative analysis of tumour biology before, during and after treatment. Current technologies enabling the identification of better predictive biomarkers are shaping the new era of (neo)adjuvant trials. An urgent need exists to reinforce collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academia to share data and thus establish large databases of biomarker data coupled with patient outcomes that are easily accessible to the scientific community. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era and provide critical insights into how neoadjuvant studies are currently designed, discussing the need for better end points and treatment strategies that are more personalized, including in the post-neoadjuvant setting.

Systemic therapies for early-stage disease have been tested in clinical trials for decades. The authors of this Review provide an overview of the evolution of (neo)adjuvant trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era, focusing on design, end points and biomarkers that, together, could enable the delivery of more personalized treatment.

Systemic therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer has dramatically improved over the past eight decades, and the aims and designs of (neo)adjuvant clinical trials have consistently evolved.

The transition of clinical trials from the pre-genomic to the post-genomic era has been based on a deeper understanding of disease biology and a higher level of interest in the discovery of molecular markers associated with a response to treatment.

The currently adopted approach to the design of neoadjuvant trials requires a new wave of changes, with the implementation of validated end points with more robust predictive associations with survival outcomes and more personalized treatment strategies (escalation and/or de-escalation).

The evolution towards a more personalized treatment approach is leading to increasing interest in the post-neoadjuvant setting to investigate new drugs specifically in patients with high-risk disease.

Optimizing the efficiency of the search for novel biomarkers that can guide treatment tailoring requires the establishment of large, well-annotated databases of candidate biomarkers linked with clinical outcomes that are also easily accessible to the scientific community.

Early sharing of data from clinical trials should be based on joint efforts and reinforced collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academic entities.

Scoping and targeted reviews to support development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: protocol

INTRODUCTION

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a primary patient-relevant outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently, that is, with shorter time, smaller sample size and lower cost. However, there is currently no consensus-driven guideline for the reporting of RCTs using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the design and reporting of these trials. As an initial step, scoping and targeted reviews will identify potential items for inclusion in the extensions and participants to contribute to a Delphi consensus process.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will search and include literature reporting on the current understanding, limitations and guidance on using surrogate endpoints in trials. Relevant literature will be identified through: (1) bibliographic databases; (2) grey literature; (3) handsearching of reference lists and (4) solicitation from experts. Data from eligible records will be thematically analysed into potential items for inclusion in extensions. The targeted review will search for RCT reports and protocols published from 2017 to 2021 in six high impact general medical journals. Trial corresponding author contacts will be listed as potential participants for the Delphi exercise.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. The reviews will support the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for reporting surrogate primary endpoints (surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome). The findings will be published in open-access publications.This review has been prospectively registered in the OSF Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WP3QH.

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Development of a framework and decision tool for the evaluation of health technologies based on surrogate endpoint evidence

In the drive toward faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and payers are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence based on surrogate endpoints, increasing decision uncertainty. Despite the development of a small number of evaluation frameworks, there remains no consensus on the detailed methodology for handling surrogate endpoints in HTA practice. This research overviews the methods and findings of four empirical studies undertaken as part of COMED (Pushing the Boundaries of Cost and Outcome Analysis of Medical Technologies) program work package 2 with the aim of analyzing international HTA practice of the handling and considerations around the use of surrogate endpoint evidence. We have synthesized the findings of these empirical studies, in context of wider contemporary body of methodological and policy-related literature on surrogate endpoints, to develop a web-based decision tool to support HTA agencies and payers when faced with surrogate endpoint evidence. Our decision tool is intended for use by HTA agencies and their decision-making committees together with the wider community of HTA stakeholders (including clinicians, patient groups, and healthcare manufacturers). Having developed this tool, we will monitor its use and we welcome feedback on its utility.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

Outcomes following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation for veterans with Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer

Background

The optimal upfront treatment modality for patients with nonmetastatic Gleason Score 9 and 10 prostate cancer (GS 9–10 PCa) is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with GS 9–10 PCa treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT) from 1/2000 to 12/2010. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and salvage/adjuvant therapy‐free survival (SAFS), as assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

We identified 1220 veterans with GS 9–10 PCa; 335 were treated with RP, and 885 were treated with EBRT+ADT. With a median follow‐up of 9.9 years, propensity score‐matched analyses demonstrated that RP had superior 10‐year OS (70.8% [RP] vs. 61.2% [EBRT+ADT], p < 0.001), 10‐year DMFS rates were similar between RP (76.7%) and EBRT+ADT (81.0%), and 10‐year SAFS rates were lower for RP vs EBRT + ADT (35.2% [RP] vs. 75.2% [EBRT+ADT], p < 0.001). The receipt of salvage ADT was higher with upfront RP (51.9% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), despite receipt of adjuvant/salvage EBRT in 41.8% of RP patients. Among patients treated with RP, there were no differences in outcomes by race. However, higher survival rates were noted among Black patients treated with EBRT+ADT compared with White patients.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrated higher 10‐year OS rates among men treated with upfront RP versus EBRT+ADT, though missing confounders and similar DMFS rates suggest the long‐term cause‐specific OS rates may be similar. We also highlight real‐world outcomes of a diverse patient population in the VHA and improved outcomes for Black patients receiving EBRT+ADT.

Surrogacy Beyond Prognosis: The Importance of “Trial-Level” Surrogacy

Many candidate surrogate endpoints are currently assessed using a 2-level statistical approach, which consists in checking whether (1) the potential surrogate is associated with the final endpoint in individual patients and (2) the effect of treatment on the surrogate can be used to reliably predict the effect of treatment on the final endpoint. In some situations, condition (1) is fulfilled but condition (2) is not. We use concepts of causal inference to explain this apparently paradoxical situation, illustrating this review with 2 contrasting examples in operable breast cancer: the example of pathological complete response (pCR) and that of disease-free survival (DFS). In a previous meta-analysis, pCR has been shown to be a strong and independent prognostic factor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) after neoadjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer. Yet, in randomized trials, the effects of experimental treatments on pCR have not translated into predictable effects on EFS or OS, making pCR an “individual-level” surrogate, but not a “trial-level” surrogate. In contrast, DFS has been shown to be an acceptable surrogate for OS at both the individual and trial levels in early, HER2-positive breast cancer. The distinction between the prognostic and predictive roles of a tentative surrogate, not always made in the literature, avoids unnecessary confusion and allows better understanding of what it takes to validate a surrogate endpoint that is truly able to replace a final endpoint.

Counterfactual mediation analysis in the multistate model framework for surrogate and clinical time-to-event outcomes in randomized controlled trials

In cancer randomized controlled trials, surrogate endpoints are frequently time-to-event endpoints, subject to the competing risk from the time-to-event clinical outcome. In this context, we introduce a counterfactual-based mediation analysis for a causal assessment of surrogacy. We use a multistate model for risk prediction to account for both direct transitions towards the clinical outcome and indirect transitions through the surrogate outcome. Within the counterfactual framework, we define natural direct and indirect effects with a causal interpretation. Based on these measures, we define the proportion of the treatment effect on the clinical outcome mediated by the surrogate outcome. We estimate the proportion for both the cumulative risk and restricted mean time lost. We illustrate our approach by using 18-year follow-up data from the SPCG-4 randomized trial of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We assess time to metastasis as a surrogate outcome for prostate cancer-specific mortality.

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

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.

Time to next treatment or death as a candidate surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an insight from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial

Background

Time to next treatment or death (TNT-D) may be a patient-relevant endpoint in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This study investigated TNT-D as a surrogate endpoint (SE) for overall survival (OS) in previously untreated advanced melanoma patients.

Methods

Patient-level data from the 60-month results of the CheckMate 067 randomised, controlled trial were used. Analyses were carried out for nivolumab monotherapy or nivolumab with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab monotherapy. The SE 1-step validation method based on a joint frailty-copula model was used where the country of enrolment was applied to define clusters. Kendall’s τ and the coefficient of determination (R²_trial) were estimated for respective measurements of association at the individual and cluster levels. The surrogate threshold effect, the maximum threshold hazard ratio for TNT-D that would translate into OS benefit, was estimated. A leave-one-out cross-validation analysis was carried out to evaluate model robustness.

Results

Fifteen clusters of data were generated from 945 patients. For both nivolumab-containing arms, the association between TNT-D and OS was deemed acceptable at the individual level (Kendall’s τ > 0.60) and strong at the cluster level, with R²_trial fairly close to 1, with narrow confidence intervals. The estimated surrogate threshold effects were 0.61 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and 0.49 for nivolimub + ipilimumab versus ipilimumab. Cross-validation results showed minimum variation of the correlation measures and satisfactory predictive accuracy for the model.

Conclusion

Results suggest that TNT-D may be a valuable SE in previously untreated advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Surrogacy analyses considering multiple randomised controlled trials are warranted for confirming these findings.

•

This is the first study to assess the surrogacy properties of TNT-D for OS in immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients.

•

TNT-D is a clinically relevant, pragmatic and often measurable endpoint that reflects the result of a therapeutic decision.

•

TNT-D appears to be a promising SE for OS in advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Assessment of Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction as a Surrogate for All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Treatment or Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Although nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with an increased risk of mortality, evidence validating nonfatal MI as a surrogate end point for all-cause or cardiovascular (CV) mortality is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether nonfatal MI may be a surrogate for all-cause or CV mortality in patients with or at risk for coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

In this meta-analysis, PubMed was searched from inception until December 31, 2020, for randomized clinical trials of interventions to treat or prevent coronary artery disease reporting mortality and nonfatal MI published in 3 leading journals.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials including at least 1000 patients with 24 months of follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Trial-level correlations between nonfatal MI and all-cause or CV mortality were assessed for surrogacy using the coefficient of determination (R2). The criterion for surrogacy was set at 0.8. Subgroup analyses based on study subject (primary prevention, secondary prevention, mixed primary and secondary prevention, and revascularization), era of trial (before 2000, 2000-2009, and 2010 and after), and follow-up duration (2.0-3.9, 4.0-5.9, and ≥6.0 years) were performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause or CV mortality and nonfatal MI.

RESULTS

A total of 144 articles randomizing 1 211 897 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Nonfatal MI did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause (R2 = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08) or CV (R2 = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.27) mortality. Nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality in primary (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.26), secondary (R2 = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.00-0.20), mixed primary and secondary prevention (R2 = 0.001; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08), or revascularization trials (R2 = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.002-0.50). For trials enrolling patients before 2000 (R2 = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36), between 2000 and 2009 (R2 = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.17), and from 2010 and after (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.09), nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality. Nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality in randomized clinical trials with 2.0 to 3.9 (R2 = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08), 4.0 to 5.9 (R2 = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.001-0.16), or 6.0 or more years of follow-up (R2 = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.01-0.55).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this meta-analysis do not appear to establish nonfatal MI as a surrogate for all-cause or CV mortality in randomized clinical trials of interventions to treat or prevent coronary artery disease.

Surrogate endpoints for early-stage breast cancer: a review of the state of the art, controversies, and future prospects

Drug approval for early-stage breast cancer (EBC) has been historically granted in the context of registration trials based on adequate outcomes such as disease-free survival and overall survival. Improvements in long-term outcomes have made it more difficult to demonstrate the clinical benefit of a new cancer drug in large, randomized, comparative clinical trials. Therefore, the use of surrogate endpoints rather than traditional measures allows for cancer drug trials to proceed with smaller sample sizes and shorter follow-up periods, which reduces drug development time. Among surrogate endpoints for breast cancer, the increase in pathological complete response (pCR) rates was considered appropriate for accelerated drug approval. The association between pCR and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with aggressive tumor subtypes, such as triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive/hormone receptor-negative breast cancers. Whereas in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative EBC, the most accepted surrogate markers for endocrine therapy-based trials include changes in Ki67 and the preoperative endocrine prognostic index. Beyond the classic endpoints, further prognostic tools are required to provide EBC patients with individualized and effective therapies, and the neoadjuvant setting provides an excellent platform for drug development and biomarker discovery. Nowadays, the availability of multigene signatures is offering a standardized quantitative and reproducible tool to potentiate the efficacy of standard treatment for high-risk patients and develop de-escalated treatments for patients at lower risk of relapse. In this article, we first evaluate the surrogacies used for long-term outcomes and the underlying evidence supporting the use of each surrogate endpoint for the accelerated or regular drug approval process in EBC. Next, we provide an overview of the most recent studies and innovative strategies in a (neo)adjuvant setting as a platform to accelerate new drug approval. Finally, we highlight some clinical trials aimed at tailoring systemic treatment of EBC using prognosis-related factors or early biomarkers of drug sensitivity or resistance.

Surrogate endpoint evaluation using data from one large global randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robust 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.

METHODS

Data 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).

RESULTS

Group-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.

CONCLUSIONS

We 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.

Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies

BACKGROUND

Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA).

OBJECTIVES

1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies.

METHODS

We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency's acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation.

RESULTS

Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports (k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.20; P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.

Exploration of modified progression-free survival as a novel surrogate endpoint for overall survival in immuno-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Progression-free survival (PFS) exhibits suboptimal performance as the surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in trials studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here we propose a novel surrogate endpoint, modified PFS (mPFS), which omits the events of disease progression (but not deaths) within 3 months after randomization.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized trials studying ICIs in advanced solid tumors with available PFS and OS data up to May 2020. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for PFS and OS were reconstructed for eligible trials. A simulation-based algorithm was used to match the reconstructed, disconnected PFS and OS IPD, and 1000 independent simulated datasets of matched PFS-OS IPD were generated for each trial. mPFS durations and statuses were then measured for each of the matched PFS-OS IPD. Trial-level correlation between Cox HRs for PFS or mPFS and HRs for OS was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient (rp) weighted by trial size; patient-level correlation between PFS or mPFS and OS was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs). Findings were further validated using the original IPD from two randomized ICI trials.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven ICI trials totaling 29,429 participants were included. PFS HR showed moderate correlation with OS HR (rp=0.60), and PFS was moderately correlated with OS at the patient level (median rs=0.66; range, 0.65-0.68 among the 1000 simulations). In contrast, mPFS HR achieved stronger correlation with OS HR (median rp=0.81; range, 0.77-0.84), and mPFS was more strongly correlated with OS at the patient level (median rs=0.79; range, 0.78-0.80). The superiority of mPFS over PFS remained consistent in subgroup analyses by cancer type, therapeutic regimen, and treatment setting. In both trials with the original IPD where experimental treatment significantly improved OS, mPFS successfully captured such clinical benefits whereas PFS did not.

CONCLUSIONS

mPFS outperformed PFS as the surrogate endpoint for OS in ICI trials. mPFS is worthy of further investigation as a secondary endpoint in future ICI trials.