Phase II trial design with growth modulation index as the primary endpoint

Estimating the distribution of ratio of paired event times in phase II oncology trials

With the rapid development of new anti-cancer agents which are cytostatic, new endpoints are needed to better measure treatment efficacy in phase II trials. For this purpose, Von Hoff (1998) proposed the growth modulation index (GMI), that is, the ratio between times to progression or progression-free survival times in two successive treatment lines. An essential task in studies using GMI as an endpoint is to estimate the distribution of GMI. Traditional methods for survival data have been used for estimating the GMI distribution because censoring is common for GMI data. However, we point out that the independent censoring assumption required by traditional survival methods is always violated for GMI, which may lead to severely biased results. In this paper, we construct both nonparametric and parametric estimators for the distribution of GMI, accounting for the dependent censoring of GMI. Extensive simulation studies show that our nonparametric estimators perform well in practical situations and outperform existing estimators, and our parametric estimators perform better than our nonparametric estimators and existing estimators when the parametric model is correctly specified. A phase II clinical trial using GMI as the primary endpoint is provided for illustration.

Molecular Tumor Board-Assisted Care in an Advanced Cancer Population: Results of a Phase II Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTBs) interpret next-generation sequencing reports and help oncologists determine best therapeutic options; however, there is a paucity of data regarding their clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to determine if MTB-directed therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) over immediately prior therapy in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This single-arm, prospective phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced cancer with an actionable mutation who received MTB-recommended targeted therapy between January 1, 2017, and October 31, 2020. MTB-recommended both on-label (level 1 evidence) and off-label (evidence levels 2 and 3) therapies. Of the 93 enrolled patients, 43 were treated frontline and 50 received second-line or greater-line therapy. The primary outcome was the probability of patients treated with second-line or greater-line MTB-directed therapy who achieved a PFS ratio ≥ 1.3 (PFS on MTB-directed therapy divided by PFS on the patient's immediately prior therapy). Secondary outcomes included PFS for patients treated frontline and overall survival and adverse effects for the entire study population.

RESULTS

The most common disease sites were lung (35 of 93, 38%), gynecologic (17 of 93, 18%), GI (16 of 93, 17%), and head and neck (7 of 93, 8%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of PFS ratio ≥ 1.3 was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75) for patients treated with second-line or greater-line MTB-directed therapy. The median PFS was 449 (range 42-1,125) days for patients treated frontline. The median overall survival was 768 (range 22-1,240) days. There were four nontreatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

When treated with MTB-directed therapy, most patients experienced improved PFS compared with immediately prior treatment. MTB-directed targeted therapy may be a strategy to improve outcomes for patients with advanced cancer.

The progression-free survival ratio as outcome measure in recurrent ovarian carcinoma patients: Current and future perspectives

•

The progression-free survival (PFS) ratio represents a meaningful outcome measure.

•

The median PFS-ratio differs significantly between histological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma.

•

Thresholds for clinical benefit should be adjusted for clinicopathological factors.

•

Treatment response during PFS1 may result in a distorted view of the PFS-ratio.

Objective

Clinical efficacy of cytostatic anticancer agents can be determined with the progression-free survival (PFS) ratio. This outcome measure compares PFS achieved by a new treatment (PFS2) to the PFS of the most recent treatment on which the patient has experienced progression (PFS1). Clinical benefit has been defined as a PFS-ratio (PFS2/PFS1) > 1.3. However, in order to demonstrate significant benefit, trial designs require an assumption on the proportion of patients who reach this ratio during palliative options. For ovarian carcinoma, data is lacking to support this assumption. Therefore in this study, we assess the PFS-ratio in recurrent ovarian carcinoma patients treated with current palliative options.

Methods

We included 67 patients with recurrent high-grade serous (HGSC, 73.1%) or low-grade (LGOC, 26.9%) ovarian carcinoma. We determined the median PFS-ratio and investigated the association with clinicopathological characteristics.

Results

Overall, we observed a median PFS-ratio of 0.69. The proportion of patients with a PFS-ratio > 1.3 was 22.4%. For HGSC patients, the median PFS-ratio was significantly lower than for LGOC patients (respectively, 0.58 and 1.26, p = 0.007). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the LGOC subtype and CA125 tumor marker concentration were independent factors related to a PFS-ratio > 1.3.

Conclusions

Although the PFS-ratio represents a meaningful outcome measure in studies investigating cytostatic anticancer agents, we conclude that it is influenced by tumor histology and biological behavior. In future research, these factors should be taken into account when determining thresholds for clinical benefit in trial designs.

Community-driven development of a modified progression-free survival ratio for precision oncology

Objective

Measuring the success of molecularly guided therapies is a major challenge in precision oncology trials. A commonly used endpoint is an intra-patient progression-free survival (PFS) ratio, defined as the PFS interval associated with molecularly guided therapy (PFS2) divided by the PFS interval associated with the last prior systemic therapy (PFS1), above 1.3 or, in some studies, above 1.33 or 1.5.

Methods

To investigate if the concept of PFS ratios is in agreement with actual response evaluations by physicians, we conducted a survey among members of the MASTER (Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research) Programme of the German Cancer Consortium who were asked to classify the success of molecularly guided therapies in 194 patients enrolled in the MOSCATO 01 trial based on PFS1 and PFS2 times.

Results

A comparison of classification profiles revealed three distinct clusters of PFS benefit assessments. Only 29% of assessments were consistent with a PFS ratio threshold of 1.3, whereas the remaining 71% of participants applied a different classification scheme that did not rely on the relation between PFS times alone, but also took into account absolute PFS1 intervals. Based on these community-driven insights, we developed a modified PFS ratio that incorporates the influence of absolute PFS1 intervals on the judgement of clinical benefit by physicians. Application of the modified PFS ratio to outcome data from two recent precision oncology trials, MOSCATO 01 and WINTHER, revealed significantly improved concordance with physician-perceived clinical benefit and identified comparable proportions of patients who benefited from molecularly guided therapies.

Conclusions

The modified PFS ratio may represent a meaningful clinical endpoint that could aid in the design and interpretation of future precision oncology trials.