Correlation Between Imaging-Based Intermediate Endpoints and Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials Using the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2) Criteria in 16,511 Patients

Heterogeneity of Radiological Progression Patterns and Association with Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of clinical trials using radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) instead of overall survival as the primary study endpoint, the heterogeneity of different radiological progression patterns in rPFS and postprogression survival (PPS) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Herein, we investigate the proportion of various radiological progression patterns in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and further explore the differences in rPFS and PPS between patients exhibiting single- or multicategory progression patterns.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This post hoc, retrospective secondary analysis was based on individual patient data from LATITUDE (phase 3 randomized mHSPC study) and COU-AA-302 (phase 3 randomized mCRPC study). Patients with complete imaging follow-up data and radiological progression were included in the analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The rPFS and PPS in LATITUDE and COU-AA-302 were evaluated. The proportion of patients exhibiting each progression pattern was calculated, and a survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of the 489 mHSPC patients studied, 366 experienced single-category progression, while the remaining 123 patients (25.2%) exhibited simultaneous occurrence of different progressive events (multicategory radiological progression). Of the 534 mCRPC patients studied, 390 experienced single-category progression, while the remaining 144 patients (27.0%) experienced multicategory progressive events. Among mCRPC patients, the rPFS of bone progression was the shortest. In contrast, among mHSPC patients, the rPFS of target lesion enlargement is the shortest, followed by bone progression. Notably, patients experiencing a single-category progression pattern displayed comparable rPFS to but significantly longer PPS than those experiencing multicategory progression patterns (PPS mHSPC cohort: 21.5 vs 6.9 mo, p < 0.0001; mCRPC cohort: 23.6 vs 15.7 mo, p < 0.0001). The study is limited by its hypothesis-generating nature. Therefore, the observed phenomena in our research necessitate validation through future prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who experience multicategory radiological progression represent a significant proportion, accounting for approximately 25% of all men with mHSPC or mCRPC. Patients with multicategory radiological progression patterns had similar rPFS to but significantly shorter PPS than those experiencing single-category progression patterns. In future clinical trials and clinical practice, radiological progression patterns should be recognized as a crucial determinant of prognosis, while also serving as the stratification or inclusion criteria for second-line treatment clinical trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we observed that among men with metastatic prostate cancer, those who experienced two or more radiological events during a single visit had a worse prognosis than those who experienced isolated radiological events.

Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed

Composite outcome measures such as progression-free survival and disease-free survival are increasingly used as surrogate end points in oncology research, frequently serving as the primary end point of pivotal trials that form the basis for FDA and EMA approvals. Such outcome measures combine two or more distinct events (for example, tumour (re)growth, new lesions and/or death) into a single, time-to-event end point. The use of a composite end point can increase the statistical power of a clinical trial and decrease the follow-up period required to demonstrate efficacy, thus lowering costs; however, these end points have a number of limitations. Composite outcomes are often vaguely defined, with definitions that vary greatly between studies, complicating comparisons of results across trials. Altering the makeup of events included in a composite outcome can alter study conclusions, including whether treatment effects are statistically significant. Moreover, the events included in a composite outcome often vary in clinical significance, reflect distinct biological pathways and/or are affected differently by treatment. Therefore, knowing the precise breakdown of the component events is essential to accurately interpret trial results and gauge the true benefit of an intervention. In oncology clinical trials, however, such information is rarely provided. In this Perspective, we emphasize this deficiency through a review of 50 studies with progression-free survival as an outcome published in five top oncology journals, discuss the advantages and challenges of using composite end points, and highlight the need for transparent reporting of the component events.