Reporting trends of outcome measures in phase II and phase III trials conducted in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

Tumor Response, Disease Control, and Progression-Free Survival as Surrogate Endpoints in Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Study- and Patient-Level Analyses

Background: To assess the usefulness of tumor response and progression-free survival (PFS) as surrogates for overall survival (OS) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), which have not been confirmed. Methods: Patient- and trial-level analyses were performed. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was preferred for image assessment. For trial-level analysis, surrogacy was assessed using the weighted rank correlation coefficient (r) following "reciprocal duplication." This method duplicates all plots as if the experimental and the reference arms were switched. Monte Carlo simulations were performed for evaluating this method. Results: A total of 3312 cases were included in the patient-level analysis. Patients without response (first line (1L): hazard ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-2.23; second or later line (2L-): HR 4.22, 95% CI 3.22-5.53), without disease control (1L: HR 4.34, 95% CI 3.82-4.94; 2L-: HR 3.36, 95% CI 2.96-3.81), or with progression during the first year (1L: HR 3.42, 95% CI 2.60-4.50; 2L-: HR 3.33, 95% CI 2.64-4.20), had a higher risk of death. Systematic searches identified 38 RCTs including 17,515 patients for the study-level analysis. Odds ratio in the objective response rate (N = 38 × 2, r = -0.87) and HR in PFS (N = 38 × 2, r = 0.85) showed an excellent association with HR in overall survival, while this effect was not observed in the disease control rate (N = 26 × 2, r = -0.03). Conclusions: Objective response rate and PFS are reasonable surrogates for OS in NSCLC trials with ICI.

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration

The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed to promote the conduct of, and provide guidance for, predictive analyses of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in clinical trials. The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risk with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously, to support more personalized clinical decision making than can be made on the basis of only an overall average treatment effect. The authors distinguished 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches (a "risk-modeling" and an "effect-modeling" approach) and developed 4 sets of guidance statements: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically meaningful HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. They discuss limitations of these methods and enumerate research priorities for advancing methods designed to generate more personalized evidence. This explanation and elaboration document describes the intent and rationale of each recommendation and discusses related analytic considerations, caveats, and reservations.

Progression-Free Survival, Response Rate, and Disease Control Rate as Predictors of Overall Survival in Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced, Locally Advanced, and Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Recent improvements in chemotherapy agents have prolonged postprogression survival of non-small cell lung cancer. Thus, primary outcomes other than overall survival (OS) have been frequently used for recent phase III trials to obtain quick results. However, no systematic review had assessed whether progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and disease control rate (DCR) can serve as surrogates for OS at the trial level in the phase III first-line chemotherapy setting.

METHODS

We included phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two arms that were reported as a full article regardless of their primary end point. We included only RCTs that evaluated chemonaive patients with advanced, locally advanced, or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and were published after January 1, 2005. We systematically searched four public electronic databases. Two investigators independently screened and scrutinized candidate articles. How surrogate outcomes represented hazard ratios (HRs) for OS was examined.

RESULTS

Among 1907 articles, we ultimately found 44 eligible articles covering 22,709 subjects. HR for PFS, median PFS in the experimental arm minus median PFS in the control arm in months, OR for RR (ORrr), and OR for DCR were evaluated in 34, 35, 44, and 35 RCTs, respectively. HR for OS (HRos), median PFS in the experimental arm minus median PFS in the control arm, ORrr, and OR for DCR had weighted Spearman's rank correlation coefficients with an HRos of 0.496, 0.477, 0.570, and 0.470, respectively; the standardized weighted regression coefficients were 0.439, -0.376, -0.605, and -0.381, respectively; and the adjusted weighted coefficients of determination were 0.224, 0.161, 0.350, and 0.176, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ORrr, followed by HRpfs, had the strongest association with HRos at the trial level. However, these measures were not strong enough to replace OS.

Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: a structured literature review

INTRODUCTION

In advanced cancer quality of life (QoL) is the most important goal of care. It is measured by patient-reported-outcomes (PRO). This structured review evaluated how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on anti-cancer therapy in advanced cancer reported PRO.

METHODS

Search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed for RCTs with median patient survival of ≤2 years. Reporting was rated with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension.

RESULTS

Of 370 retrieved publications, 117 were eligible, but only 30/117 (26%) reported PRO. QoL was most frequently measured (29/30). On average, 4.4 (SD 2.5) of the 14 CONSORT items were met.

CONCLUSION

PRO are insufficiently reported in advanced cancer trials. Yet, this is paramount to enable an informed and patient-oriented decision making process.

The Role of End-of-Life Issues in the Design and Reporting of Cancer Clinical Trials: A Structured Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important sources of information on the benefits and harms patients may expect from treatment options. The aim of this structured literature review by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care was to explore whether and how the end-of-life (EoL) situation of patients with advanced cancer is considered in RCTs investigating anti-cancer treatments.

METHODS

Our journal pool comprised 19 medical journals, namely five preselected key general medical journals as well as 14 specialist journals (mainly cancer) identified via a scoping search. We systematically searched these journals in MEDLINE to identify RCTs investigating anti-cancer treatments for the following four cancer types: glioblastoma, lung cancer (stage IIIb-IV), malignant melanoma (stage IV), and pancreatic cancer (search via OVID; November 2012). We selected a representative sample of 100 publications, that is, the 25 most recent publications for each cancer type. EoL was defined as a life expectancy of ≤ two years. We assessed the information provided on (1) the descriptions of the terminal stage of the disease, (2) the therapeutic goal (i.e. the intended therapeutic benefit of the intervention studied), (3) the study endpoints assessed, (4) the authors' concluding appraisal of the intervention's effects, and (5) the terminology referring to the patients' EoL situation.

RESULTS

Median survival was ≤ one year for each of the four cancer types. Descriptions of the terminal stage of the disease were ambiguous or lacking in 29/100 publications. One or more therapeutic goals were mentioned in 51/100 publications; these goals were patient-relevant in 38 publications (survival alone: 30/38; health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or HRQoL and survival: 6/38; symptom control or symptom control and survival: 2/38). Primary endpoints included survival (50%), surrogates (44%), and safety (3%). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed in 36/100 RCTs. The implications of treatment-related harms for the patients were discussed in 22/100 appraisals. Terminology referring to the patients' EoL situation (e.g. "terminal") was scarce, whereas terms suggesting control of the disease (e.g. "cancer control") were common.

CONCLUSIONS

The EoL situation of patients with advanced cancer should be more carefully considered in clinical trials. Although the investigation and robust reporting of PROs is a prerequisite for informed decision-making in healthcare, they are rarely defined as endpoints and HRQoL is rarely mentioned as a therapeutic goal. Suggestions for improving standards for study design and reporting are presented.