Progression-free survival as an end-point in solid tumours – Perspectives from clinical trials and clinical practice

Composite event-free-survival as an endpoint in oncology drug evaluation: Review and guidance perspectives from the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)

BACKGROUND

The use of right-censored composite endpoints, such as progression-free survival, has been questioned in haemato-oncology trials due to potential bias in estimated treatment effect. This may impact the accuracy of health technology evaluations. We hypothesized that there is heterogeneity and potential sources of bias in the reporting of composite endpoints to health technology assessment (HTA) bodies.

METHODS

We reviewed the submissions for reimbursement of oncology drugs in 2021 and 2022 that used a composite endpoint in the pivotal trial, after appraisal by the French HTA body. The retrieved information included the clinical study report, protocol, and statistical analysis plan submitted by the industry. All events of the composite endpoint and all causes of censored observations were measured. The design characteristics and treatment effect estimates were recorded.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six submissions were selected, including seven without a right-censored endpoint and four evaluating associations, resulting in 65 analysed records: 17 for haematological and 48 for solid tumours. Out these 65 submissions, 47 (72·3%) used a randomized controlled design, and 18 (27·7%) a non-comparative design. The most frequently used composite endpoint was progression-free survival, used in 54 (83·1%) of the submissions. Censoring was possibly informative in 51 (92·7%) cases, mostly due to the onset of new treatment (44/51, 86·3%) and/or discontinuation of follow-up (33/51, 64·7%). In contrast, 38 (58·5%) trials reported a quantification of censored observations, with only 12/51 (23·5%) quantifying the informative ones. The estimated treatment effect on the composite outcome increased with the amount of censoring, suggesting a higher benefit of the drug, but remained below that on survival with poor evidence of surrogacy (R-squared=0·23).

INTERPRETATION

Clinical study reports should be improved in terms of reporting censoring, while stakeholders should be aware of this potential source of bias. At a minimum, sensitivity analysis that ignores intercurrent events should be requested.

Time-to-Event Endpoints in Imaging Biomarker Studies

Time-to-event endpoints are widely used as measures of patients' well-being and indicators of prognosis. In imaging-based biomarker studies, there are increasingly more studies that focus on examining imaging biomarkers' prognostic or predictive utilities on those endpoints, whether in a trial or an observational study setting. In this educational review article, we briefly introduce some basic concepts of time-to-event endpoints and point out potential pitfalls in the context of imaging biomarker research in hope of improving radiologists' understanding of related subjects. Besides, we have included some review and discussions on the benefits of using time-to-event endpoints and considerations on selecting overall survival or progression-free survival for primary analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Prognostic effect of CD73 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma for disease-free survival after radical surgery

PURPOSE

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease with a high potency of metastasis or recurrence after radical resection. Effective predictors for metastasis and recurrence postoperatively were dominant for the development of systemic adjuvant treatment regimens. The ATP hydrolase correlated gene CD73 was described as a promoter in tumor growth and immune escape of PDAC. However, there lacked research focused on the role of CD73 in PDAC metastasis. This study aimed to investigate the expression of CD73 in PDAC patients with different outcomes as well as the prognostic effect of CD73 for disease-free survival (DFS).

METHODS

The expression level of CD73 in cancerous samples from 301 PDAC patients was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and translated into a histochemistry score (H-score) by the HALO analysis system. Then, the CD73 H-score was involved in multivariate Cox regression along with other clinicopathological characteristics to find independent prognostic factors for DFS. Finally, a nomogram was constructed based on those independent prognostic factors for DFS prediction.

RESULTS

Higher CD73 expression was found in PDAC patients with tumor metastasis postoperatively. Meanwhile, higher CD73 expressions were also investigated in PDAC patients diagnosed with advanced N stage and T stage. Furthermore, CD73 H-score along with tumor margin status, CA19-9, 8th N stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy was indicated as independent prognostic factors for DFS in PDAC patients. The nomogram based on these factors predicted DFS in a good manner.

CONCLUSION

CD73 was associated with PDAC metastasis and served as an effective prognostic factor for DFS in PDAC patients after radical surgery.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Several drugs gained market authorization based on the demonstration of improved progression-free survival (PFS), adopted as a primary endpoint in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, an increasing number of drugs have been granted accelerated approval, and sometimes regular approval, by the main regulatory agencies based on the evaluation of the overall response rate in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. However, while the overall survival is an unbiased measure of drug efficacy, these outcomes rely on the assessment of radiological images and patients’ categorization using standardized response criteria. The evaluation of these outcomes may be influenced by subjective factors, particularly when the analysis is performed locally. In fact, blinding of treatment is not always possible in modern oncology trials. Therefore, a blinded independent central review is often adopted to overcome the problem of expectation bias associated with local investigator assessments. In this regard, we have recently observed that local investigators tend to overestimate the overall response rate in comparison to central reviewers in Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas we did not find any significant evaluation bias between local investigators and central reviews when considering progression-free survival in both Phase 2 and 3 trials. In the present article, we have tried to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy by reviewing the available evidence in the literature. In addition, a further analysis of Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that included the evaluation of both endpoints showed that local investigators significantly overestimate overall response rates compared to blinded independent central reviews in uncontrolled oncology trials.

A Novel Cuproptosis-Related Prognostic Gene Signature and Validation of Differential Expression in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent subtype of renal cell carcinoma, which is characterized by metabolic reprogramming. Cuproptosis, a novel form of cell death, is highly linked to mitochondrial metabolism and mediated by protein lipoylation. However, the clinical impacts of cuproptosis-related genes (CRGs) in ccRCC largely remain unclear. In the current study, we systematically evaluated the genetic alterations of cuproptosis-related genes in ccRCC. Our results revealed that CDKN2A, DLAT, DLD, FDX1, GLS, PDHA1 and PDHB exhibited differential expression between ccRCC and normal tissues (|log2(fold change)| > 2/3 and p < 0.05). Utilizing an iterative sure independence screening (SIS) method, we separately constructed the prognostic signature of CRGs for predicting the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in ccRCC patients. The prognostic score of CRGs yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.658 and 0.682 for the prediction of 5-year OS and PFS, respectively. In the Kaplan−Meier survival analysis of OS, a higher risk score of cuproptosis-related gene signature was significantly correlated with worse overall survival (HR = 2.72 (2.01−3.68), log-rank p = 1.76 × 10−7). Patients with a higher risk had a significantly shorter PFS (HR = 2.83 (2.08−3.85), log-rank p = 3.66 × 10−7). Two independent validation datasets (GSE40435 (N = 101), GSE53757 (N = 72)) were collected for meta-analysis, suggesting that CDKN2A (log2(fold change) = 1.46, 95%CI: 1.75−2.35) showed significantly higher expression in ccRCC tissues while DLAT (log2(fold change) = −0.54, 95%CI: −0.93−−0.15) and FDX1 (log2(fold change) = −1.01, 95%CI: −1.61−−0.42) were lowly expressed. The expression of CDKN2A and FDX1 in ccRCC was also significantly associated with immune infiltration levels and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) expression (CDKN2A: r = 0.24, p = 2.14 × 10−8; FDX1: r = −0.17, p = 1.37 × 10−4). In conclusion, the cuproptosis-related gene signature could serve as a potential prognostic predictor for ccRCC patients and may offer novel insights into the cancer treatment.

Association Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of SWOG Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an established prognostic factor for mortality; however, it is unclear if HRQOL is predictive of time to disease progression, a particularly meaningful outcome for patients. We examined the association between HRQOL and progression-free survival (PFS) in SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical trials.

METHODS

For this secondary analysis, we reviewed all completed SWOG clinical trials to identify those for patients with advanced cancer that incorporated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaires at baseline. FACT-Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI) was the primary independent variable. Associations between FACT-TOI and other FACT subscores with PFS and overall survival were evaluated via log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Three clinical trials met our inclusion criteria: S0027 and S9509 for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and S0421 for hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Of the 1,527 enrolled patients, 1,295 (85%) had both HRQOL and survival outcomes data available and were included in this analysis. In univariable analysis, we observed a statistically significant gradient effect in all three trials, with higher baseline FACT-TOI scores corresponding to better PFS (S0027, P < .001; S9509, P = .02; and S0421, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, FACT-TOI was significantly associated with PFS in S0027 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.00) but not in S9509 (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.05) or S042 (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). FACT-TOI was significantly associated with overall survival in multivariable analysis (P < .005 in all three trials).

CONCLUSION

The association between baseline FACT-TOI scores and survival underscores their potential as a stratification factor in clinical trials.

Combination of first-line chemotherapy with Kanglaite injections versus first-line chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial

Background

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage, and chemotherapy is the main treatment for this disease. Kanglaite injections (KLTi) have been widely used for the treatment of cancer in China. KLTi combined with chemotherapy could improve the short-term efficacy, quality of life, and performance status for NSCLC compared with chemotherapy alone. This trial aims to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of KLTi in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Methods

This will be an investigator-initiated multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial. We will randomly assign 334 eligible participants with stage IIIA-IV NSCLC to the treatment or control groups in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in both groups will be administered 4–6 cycles of first-line platinum-based double chemotherapy regimens. Patients with complete response, partial response, or stable disease after 4–6 cycles will receive non-platinum single-agent chemotherapy. Patients in the treatment group are to receive intravenous KLTi 200 ml per day continuously for 14 days, commencing on the first day of chemotherapy. The treatment will be discontinued at the time of disease progression or until unacceptable toxicity is noted. The follow-up will be conducted every 2 months until death, loss of follow-up, or 12 months from randomized enrollment. The primary outcome will be progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes will be the objective response rate, 1-year survival rate, quality of life, living ability, and blood lipids. The safety outcome will be the rate of adverse events.

Discussion

This study will be the first randomized controlled trial in which PFS is used as the primary outcome to test whether KLTi combined with first-line chemotherapy has superior efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. This will also be the first clinical study to observe the effects of KLTi on blood lipids.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03986528. Prospectively registered on 30 May 2019.

Potential of novel colchicine dosage schedule for the palliative treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Previous in vitro and in vivo experiments had demonstrated dose-dependent anti-cancer effects of clinical plasma colchicine concentrations on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. This phase IIa trial was to evaluate the potential efficiency and safety of our novel colchicine dosage schedule for the palliative treatment of advanced HCC. The dosage schedule started from oral intake of 1 mg colchicine three times per day for 4 days and discontinuation in the following 3 days (one cycle). The treatment cycle was repeated and the dosage was adjusted ranging from 3 to 1.5 mg/day according to the condition of the participant. The control group was originated from chart review of 86 HCC patients treated by sorafenib for more than 2 months. Fifteen participants signed the inform consent. Two participants were excluded due to screening failure in one and less than four treatment cycles in another. For severe adverse events, the colchicine group demonstrated higher incidence of biliary tract obstruction (p = 0.0184) than the sorafenib group. Comparison grade 1 or 2 adverse events between two groups, the colchicine group had higher incidence of diarrhea (p = 0) and the sorafenib group had higher incidence of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (p = 0.0045). There was no significant difference in mortality, median survival, and overall survival between two groups (all p > 0.2). In conclusion, our novel colchicine dosage schedule is clinically feasible and has the potential to be applied in the palliative treatment of advanced HCC especially based on the cost-effectiveness consideration.

Response Rates and Durations of Response for Biomarker-Based Cancer Drugs in Nonrandomized Versus Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Many new targeted cancer drugs have received FDA approval based on durable responses in nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the response rates (RRs) and durations of response (DoRs) of targeted cancer drugs observed in non-RCTs are consistent when these drugs are tested in RCTs.

METHODS

We used the FDA's Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling to identify cancer drugs that were approved based on changes in biomarker endpoints through December 2017. We then identified the non-RCTs and RCTs for these drugs for the given indications and extracted the RRs and DoRs. We compared the RRs and median DoR in non-RCTs versus RCTs using the ratio of RRs and the ratio of DoRs, defined as the RRs (or DoRs) in non-RCTs divided by the RRs (or DoRs) in RCTs. The ratio of RRs or DoRs was pooled across the trial pairs using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 21 drug-indication pairs selected, both non-RCTs and RCTs were available for 19. The RRs and DoRs in non-RCTs were greater than those in RCTs in 63% and 87% of cases, respectively. The pooled ratio of RRs was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.20), and the pooled ratio of DoRs was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33). RRs and DoRs derived from non-RCTs were also poor surrogates for overall survival derived from RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The RRs were not different between non-RCTs and RCTs of cancer drugs approved based on changes to a biomarker, but the DoRs in non-RCTs were significantly higher than in RCTs. Caution must be exercised when approving or prescribing targeted drugs based on data on durable responses derived from non-RCTs, because the responses could be overestimates and poor predictors of survival benefit.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as "surrogates" to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS-derived CBS.

METHODS

Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman's correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS-derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS-derived CBS.

RESULTS

CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS-derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86), 0.38 (0.20-0.53), 0.20 (0.00-0.38), and 0.01 (-0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS-derived CBS.

Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumour clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of overall survival (OS) as the gold standard primary end-point (PEP) in metastatic oncologic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has declined in favour of progression-free survival (PFS) without a complete understanding of the degree to which PFS reliably predicts for OS.

METHODS

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 1239 phase III oncologic RCTs, 260 of which were metastatic solid tumour trials with a superiority-design investigating a therapeutic intervention by using either a PFS or OS PEP. Each individual trial was reviewed to quantify RCT design factors and disease-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 172,133 patients were enrolled from the year 1999 to 2015 in RCTs that used PFS (56.2%, 146/260) or OS (43.8%, 114/260) as the PEP. PFS trials were more likely to restrict patient eligibility by using molecular criteria (15.1% versus 4.4%, p = 0.005) use targeted therapy (80.1% versus 67.5%, p = 0.048), accrue fewer patients (median 495 versus 619, p = 0.03), and successfully meet the trial PEP (66.9% versus 33.3%, p < 0.0001). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors that predicted for PFS or OS PEP trial success included choice of PFS PEP (p < 0.0001), molecular profile restriction (p = 0.02) and single agent therapy (p = 0.02). Notably, there was only a 38% (31/82) conversion rate of positive PFS-to-OS benefit; lack of industry sponsorship predicted for PFS-to-OS signal conversion (80.0% without industry sponsorship versus 35.1% with industry sponsorship, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

A PFS PEP has suboptimal positive predictive value for OS among phase III metastatic solid tumour RCTs. Regulatory agency decisions should be judicious in using PFS results as the primary basis for approval.

Relationship Between Progression-Free Survival, Objective Response Rate, and Overall Survival in Clinical Trials of PD-1/PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade: A Meta-Analysis

PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has improved overall survival (OS) in solid tumor trials; however, parallel improvements in Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based surrogate end points, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR), are not always observed. Here, we assess the surrogacy of PFS/ORR for OS with ICB therapy across advanced/metastatic tumors. In a trial-level analysis (N = 40 randomized trials), PFS, ORR, and OS treatment effects were correlated (Spearman's rho). In a patient-level analysis, data were extracted from available trials of durvalumab; the correlation of PFS and OS was evaluated (Bayesian normal-induced-copula-estimation model) and the ordinal association between objective response and OS hazard ratio (HR) were assessed with concordance index measures. High correlation was observed between PFS HR and OS HR in intention-to-treat (ITT; rho = 0.76) and PD-L1-enriched populations (0.74); modest (or limited) benefit in PFS was associated with meaningful improvement in OS. Moderate correlations were observed between ΔORR and OS HR: ITT, -0.63; PD-L1-enriched, -0.53. At the patient level, a positive association was observed between PFS and OS in non-small cell lung cancer (Kendall's Tau = 0.793; 95% confidence interval, 0.789-0.797), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (0.794; 0.789-0.798), and bladder cancer (0.872; 0.869-0.875). Objective responders had significantly better OS (concordance index > 0.9) than nonresponders across these tumor types. Modest (or limited) improvement in RECIST-based end points did not rule out meaningful OS benefit, indicating they are imperfect surrogates and do not fully capture ICB clinical benefit. Therefore, caution is advised when basing early discontinuation of novel ICB agents on these end points.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear whether patients with advanced cancer value surrogate end points, particularly progression-free survival (PFS). Despite this uncertainty, surrogate end points form the basis of regulatory approval for the majority of new cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and qualitatively assess studies evaluating whether patients with advanced cancer understand and value PFS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from database inception to November 12, 2018. Articles eligible for inclusion investigated patient understanding, preference, or perceived value of disease progression or PFS in the setting of advanced cancer. Three authors independently reviewed and extracted data from all studies eligible for inclusion.

FINDINGS

In total, 17 studies representing 3646 patients were included. Of these studies, 15 specifically aimed to assess patients' values toward, and their willingness to trade off toxic effects for gains or losses in the end point of PFS. All studies examined used widely disparate definitions when attempting to describe the meaning of PFS to patients. Ten studies specifically presented patients with the term progression-free survival as an attribute choice. In the words used to define the attribute of PFS, 6 studies used the term survival. Five studies clarified that PFS may not translate into better overall survival, and 5 studies explained that improvements in PFS may not reflect how well the patient may feel. No study clarified that a PFS event could represent either progression or death, and no study defined for the patient what constituted progression. The studies assessed herein underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities (mean percentage of white patients, 88%; range, 77%-96%). Values and preferences may vary across cultural backgrounds given that different relative preferences were assigned to cost and efficacy outcomes in North American vs Asian studies, although only a few studies were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The existing literature evaluating patients' understanding, preferences, and values toward the end point of PFS was severely limited by the heterogeneity of methods, attribute selection, and descriptions used to define PFS to patients. High-quality studies are needed that clearly define PFS for patients and that systematically document their understanding of the term. Only then can it be assessed whether PFS is an end point of value to patients with advanced cancer.

An Overview of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Based on the Surrogate End Point of Response Rate

IMPORTANCE

Approximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018.

EXPOSURES

Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response.

RESULTS

Eighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score

PURPOSE

To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies.

METHODS

The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance.

RESULTS

The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity.

CONCLUSION

The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been widely used in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but their efficacy and safety remain controversial. We sought to comprehensively aggregate and evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of the combination treatment with CHM and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) in NSCLC patients. Our exhausted and systematical searching strategy yielded 64 related randomized controlled trials involving 4384 patients. Compared with EGFR-TKIs therapy alone, meta-analysis showed significant differences favoring the combination treatment in progression-free survival ([Formula: see text]), median survival time ([Formula: see text]), one-year survival rate ([Formula: see text]), two-year survival rate ([Formula: see text]), probability of severe toxicities ([Formula: see text]), objective response rate ([Formula: see text]), Karnofsky performance status ([Formula: see text]), and improvement in percentage of CD3[Formula: see text] T lymphocyte ([Formula: see text]) and CD4[Formula: see text] T lymphocyte ([Formula: see text]). Though these results require further confirmation, they are prone to show a potential therapeutic value of CHM in improving the clinical effect, overcoming the drug resistance and toxicities as an adjunctive therapy to EGFR-TKIs.

Predicting Survival After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Appendix Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Appendix adenocarcinomas are rare tumors with propensity for peritoneal metastasis. Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is an established treatment with curative intent, but, to date, studies reporting survival have been heterogeneous with regard to their patient groups (including other tumor types), interventions (not all patients receiving intraperitoneal chemotherapy), and follow-up (varying surveillance protocols).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to quantify the impact of this intervention on survival in a homogeneous group of patients with appendix adenocarcinoma receiving standardized treatment and follow-up, and to determine the impact of prognostic indicators on survival.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database at a national peritoneal tumor center where all patients had their appendix pathology reviewed and management planned by a specialized peritoneal tumor multidisciplinary team.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were extracted on prognostic indicators including peritoneal cancer index, completeness of cytoreduction score, preoperative tumor markers, and histological features. Overall and disease event-free survival from the date of intervention were evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves and univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 65 patients underwent cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for appendix adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2015. Median follow-up was 44.3 months. The overall survival was 55.5% and disease event-free survival was 36.1% (5-year rate). Peritoneal Cancer Index <7, complete cytoreduction score of 0, and preoperative CEA of <6 were all associated with significantly higher overall and disease event-free survival. CA19-9 <38 and CA125 <31 were not associated with a significantly higher overall or disease event-free survival.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was limited because of the rarity of this tumor type.

CONCLUSIONS

This study quantifies the impact of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on overall and disease event-free survival for appendix adenocarcinoma, identifying key prognostic indicators that may guide treatment. It supports the referral of these rare tumors to specialist centers with appropriate expertise for initial management and follow-up. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A595.

Clinical significance of post-progression survival in lung cancer

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are two common endpoints in cancer trials. OS is usually preferred, because it is reliable, precise, meaningful, and can easily be documented. However, subsequent lines of therapy might confound the effects of first-line treatment on OS. Whether PFS or OS is the more appropriate endpoint in clinical trials of metastatic cancer remains controversial. Previous reports on lung cancer have shown that an increase in PFS does not necessarily result in an increase in OS; however, post-progression survival (PPS) is strongly associated with OS after early-line treatment. The significance of PPS after first and second-line therapy at the individual level in patients with advanced lung cancer has also recently been reported. Findings of previous reports indicate that PPS is highly associated with OS after first and second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer, whereas PFS is only moderately associated with OS. Therefore, subsequent treatment after disease progression following early-line treatments may greatly influence OS. This review demonstrates that even in advanced lung cancer, PPS, rather than PFS, has become more strongly associated with OS over the years, potentially because of intensive post-study treatments. As a result of the increasing impact of PPS on OS, a PFS-related advantage does not necessarily indicate an OS-related advantage. Thus, the prolongation of PPS might limit the classical role of OS for assessing true efficacy derived from early-line chemotherapy in future clinical trials.

Uterine sarcoma part III-Targeted therapy: The Taiwan Association of Gynecology (TAG) systematic review

Uterine sarcoma is a very aggressive and highly lethal disease. Even after a comprehensive staging surgery or en block cytoreduction surgery followed by multimodality therapy (often chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy), many patients relapse or present with distant metastases, and finally die of diseases. The worst outcome of uterine sarcomas is partly because of their rarity, unknown etiology, and highly divergent genetic aberration. Uterine sarcomas are often classified into four distinct subtypes, including uterine leiomyosarcoma, low-grade uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma, high-grade uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma, and undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. Currently, evidence from tumor biology found that these tumors showed alternation and/or mutation of genomes and the intracellular signal pathway. In addition, some preclinical studies showed promising results for targeting receptor tyrosine kinase signaling, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, various kinds of growth factor pathways, Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway, transforming growth factor β/bone morphogenetic protein signal pathway, aurora kinase A, MDM2 proto-oncogene, histone deacetylases, sex hormone receptors, certain types of oncoproteins, and/or loss of tumor suppressor genes. The current review is attempted to summarize the recurrent advance of targeted therapy for uterine sarcomas.

Clinical endpoints in trials of chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer

This Review examines the reporting of endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radical chemoradiation for treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. The types, frequency, and definitions of clinical primary and secondary endpoints, and patient-reported outcome measures, reported in the methods and results sections of papers (and protocols, if available) were examined. Only six published RCTs comprising 2877 patients were identified. Primary outcome measures varied across the trials analysed: two used disease-free survival, one used progression-free survival, two used local failure, and one used colostomy-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, complete clinical response, quality of life, toxicity, and compliance. The definitions for primary and secondary endpoints were not consistent across trials, particularly for treatment failure (local, regional, and distant). We conclude that the quality of outcome reporting in RCTs of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is inconsistent. A core set of outcomes, including clinical and patient-reported outcome measures with standardised definitions, is needed to improve the reporting of RCTs examining chemoradiation for treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

We present international consensus recommendations for improving diagnosis, management and treatment access in multiple sclerosis (MS). Our vision is that these will be used widely among those committed to creating a better future for people with MS and their families.

METHODS

Structured discussions and literature searches conducted in 2015 examined the personal and economic impact of MS, current practice in diagnosis, treatment and management, definitions of disease activity and barriers to accessing disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

RESULTS

Delays often occur before a person with symptoms suggestive of MS sees a neurologist. Campaigns to raise awareness of MS are needed, as are initiatives to improve access to MS healthcare professionals and services. We recommend a clear treatment goal: to maximize neurological reserve, cognitive function and physical function by reducing disease activity. Treatment should start early, with DMT and lifestyle measures. All parameters that predict relapses and disability progression should be included in the definition of disease activity and monitored regularly when practical. On suboptimal control of disease activity, switching to a DMT with a different mechanism of action should be considered. A shared decision-making process that embodies dialogue and considers all appropriate DMTs should be implemented. Monitoring data should be recorded formally in registries to generate real-world evidence. In many jurisdictions, access to DMTs is limited. To improve treatment access the relevant bodies should consider all costs to all parties when conducting economic evaluations and encourage the continuing investigation, development and use of cost-effective therapeutic strategies and alternative financing models.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus findings of an international author group recommend a therapeutic strategy based on proactive monitoring and shared decision-making in MS. Early diagnosis and improved treatment access are also key components.

Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries

BACKGROUND

There is a debate on the added clinical value of new, expensive, anticancer treatments. Among European decision makers, the relevance of commonly used end points in trials, especially overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL), varies, leading to the available evidence being valued differently. This research studies the extent to which the value of end points for cancer medicines differs among European decision makers.

METHODS

We compared guidelines and relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of medicines for pricing or reimbursement decisions in England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and Scotland. Anticancer medicines that received marketing authorization in Europe between 2011 and 2013 with at least four available national REAs were evaluated. A total of 79 REAs were included.

RESULTS

Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines indicate a preference for clinically and patient relevant end points such as OS and QoL above surrogate end points. Most guidelines do not specify whether PFS is considered a surrogate or patient-relevant end point. The number of REAs included per jurisdiction varied between 7 (The Netherlands) and 18 (Germany). OS data were included in all REAs and were the preferred end point by HTA agencies, but these data were not always mature or robust. QoL data are included in only 54% of the REAs, with a limited impact on the recommendations. PFS data are included in 70% of the REAs, but the extent to which HTA agencies find PFS relevant varies.

CONCLUSIONS

European decision-making on relative effectiveness of anticancer medicines is affected by a gap in requested versus available clinical evidence, mainly because the regulator is willing to accept some degree of clinical uncertainty. A multi-stakeholder debate would be essential to align concrete robust evidence requirements in oncology and a collectively shared definition for relevant clinical benefit, which will benefit patients and society in general.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5-2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65-0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients.

INTERPRETATION

Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim.