Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2

PURPOSE

Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials.

METHODS

In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles.

RESULTS

PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle.

CONCLUSION

For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

Alliance A091404: A phase II study of enzalutamide (NSC# 766085) for patients with androgen receptor-positive salivary cancers

6020

Background: A subset of salivary gland cancer (SGCs) express the androgen receptor (AR). This phase II trial evaluated the anti-androgen enzalumatide (Astellas) for patients with AR+ SGCs. Methods: Locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic AR+ SGCs were enrolled (AR status was centrally confirmed). Prior therapy with AR-targeted drugs was allowed. Enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily was given (1 cycle= 28 days). The primary endpoint was confirmed response (RR) according to RECIST v1.1 within the first 8 cycles. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. A Simon-Optimal two-stage design was used to detect a 20% RR (vs. 5%) (alpha = 5%; beta = 90%). > 1 response(s) in the first 21 would trigger accrual to 41; > 4 responses would be considered promising. Results: 46 eligible patients (pts) were enrolled (40 M, 6 F; median age 65) in 22 months. In the first 21 pts, we initially had 2 confirmed PRs allowing for full study accrual, though one was later changed to stable disease. Among the 46 pts, 7 had PR as best response, though only 2 were confirmed within the first 8 cycles (4% (95% CI: 0.5-15%). Two other PRs did not count towards the primary endpoint due to 1) development beyond 8 cycles (cycles 12-18) and 2) a confirmatory scan completed <4 weeks apart. The other 3 pts with unconfirmed PR developed progression of disease (PD) after the first PR scan. 24 pts had stable disease; 15 pts PD as best response. Among 11 pts previously treated with AR-targeted therapy, best responses were 1 confirmed PR, 7 SD, 3 PD. With a median follow-up of 11.7 months (mo), OS at 12 mo was 66% (95% CI: 52-83%), PFS at 12 mo was 24% (95% CI: 14-42%), and median PFS was 5.5 mo (95% CI: 3.7-7.3). Conclusions: This is the first prospective trial evaluating an antiandrogen alone for AR+ SGCs. The failure to meet the protocol-defined measure of success was due in part to the lack of durability of initial responses. The clinical activity observed suggests the AR-dependence of AR+ SGCs, even among those previously treated with other hormonal therapies. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Astellas; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02749903.