Surrogate threshold effect based on a meta-analysis for the predictive value of progression-free survival for overall survival in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Molecular imaging as biomarker for treatment response and outcome in breast cancer

Molecular imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET), is increasingly used as biomarker to predict and assess treatment response in breast cancer. The number of biomarkers is expanding with specific tracers for tumour characteristics throughout the body and this information can be used to aid the decision-making process. These measurements include metabolic activity using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET ([18F]FDG-PET), oestrogen receptor (ER) expression using 16α-[18F]Fluoro-17β-oestradiol ([18F]FES)-PET and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression using PET with radiolabelled trastuzumab (HER2-PET). In early breast cancer, baseline [18F]FDG-PET is frequently used for staging, but limited subtype-specific data reduce its usefulness as biomarker for treatment response or outcome. Early metabolic change on serial [18F]FDG-PET is increasingly used in the neo-adjuvant setting as dynamic biomarker to predict pathological complete response to systemic therapy, potentially allowing de-intensification or step-up intensification of treatment. In the metastatic setting, baseline [18F]FDG-PET and [18F]FES-PET can be used as biomarker to predict treatment response, in triple-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. Metabolic progression on repeated [18F]FDG-PET appears to precede progressive disease on standard evaluation imaging; however, subtype-specific studies are limited and more prospective data are needed before implementation in clinical practice. Even though (repeated) [18F]FDG-PET, [18F]FES-PET and HER2-PEt all show promising results as biomarkers to predict therapy response and outcome, for eventual integration into clinical practice, future studies will have to clarify at what timepoint this integration has to optimally take place.

Correlation between pathologic complete response, event-free survival/disease-free survival and overall survival in neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant HR+/HER2-breast cancer

Purpose

The study's purpose was to evaluate the correlation between overall survival (OS) and its potential surrogate endpoints: pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS)/disease-free survival (DFS) in neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Methods

Systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases and other relevant sources to identify literature that have reported outcomes of interest in the target setting. The strength of correlation of EFS/DFS with OS, pCR with OS, and pCR with EFS/DFS was measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) based on weighted regression analysis. For Surrogate Endpoint-True Endpoint pairs where correlation was found to be moderate, surrogate threshold effect (STE) was estimated using a mixed-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the scale and weights used and removing outlier data.

Results

Moderate correlation was observed of relative measures [log(HR)] of EFS/DFS and OS (r = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.96, p < 0.0001). STE for HR_EFS/DFS was estimated to be 0.73. Association between EFS/DFS at 1, 2 and 3 years with OS at 4- and 5-year landmarks was moderate. Relative treatment effects of pCR and EFS/DFS were not strongly associated (r: 0.24; 95% CI: -0.63, 0.84, p = 0.6028). Correlation between pCR and OS was either not evaluated due to inadequate sample size (relative outcomes) or weak (absolute outcomes). Results obtained in the sensitivity analyses were similar to base scenario.

Conclusion

EFS/DFS were moderately correlated with OS in this trial-level analysis. They may be considered as valid surrogates for OS in HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Impact of Tumor Assessment Frequency on Statistical Power in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials Evaluating Progression-Free Survival

BACKGROUND

Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as a primary endpoint in late-phase clinical trials for anti-metastatic cancer agents. Previous studies have indicated that the frequency of tumor assessment affects the statistical power for PFS because progression dates are inaccurate; however, this finding may be difficult to generalize because of its unrealistic assumptions. Therefore, we re-examined this issue under realistic assumptions and various scenarios that approximate actual clinical trials.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials comparing two interventions against a solid tumor were simulated under conditions where progressive disease (PD)-dominant PFS or a non-negligible number of deaths (death-competitive PFS) contributed to PFS events, which are conditions that resemble clinical trials of first-line therapy and later-line therapy, respectively. We assessed the impact of tumor assessment frequency on the statistical power.

RESULTS

Under the PD-dominant PFS condition, even in extreme scenarios, statistical power loss was only approximately 3%. Under the death-competitive PFS condition, tumor assessment frequency affected the statistical power of PFS if the effect of the treatment on overall survival was lower than that on time to progression. In this case, loss of statistical power was often more than 10% in some realistic scenarios.

CONCLUSION

In trials investigating first-line treatments (PD-dominant PFS), tumor assessment frequency has a negligible impact on statistical power, whereas in trials investigating late-line therapies (death-competitive PFS), the potential impact of tumor assessment frequency on statistical power should be carefully evaluated at the design stage.

Phase III Clinical Trials in First-Line Follicular Lymphoma: A Review of Their Design and Interpretation

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is one of the most common subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma worldwide. Improved survival outcomes with rituximab-based therapy in clinical trials led to the establishment of rituximab-based immunochemotherapy as standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of FL. In the GALLIUM trial, obinutuzumab-based immunochemotherapy demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS), prolonged time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNT) and comparable overall survival (OS) compared with rituximab-based immunochemotherapy as 1L treatment for FL. Using GALLIUM as an example, this article aims to explain how improved outcomes in 1L treatment of FL have changed the landscape for the design and interpretation of future trials. As approved therapies for 1L FL already achieve good responses, it is becoming more difficult to design trials that demonstrate further treatment benefits with the currently accepted primary endpoints. New endpoints are needed to reflect the long remission times, low relapse rates, and impact of subsequent therapies in FL. PFS is used as a primary efficacy endpoint in registrational clinical trials for indolent malignancies like FL, where improvement in OS is not always observed due to the large number of patients and long study duration required to demonstrate a clear survival benefit. However, there are limitations to using PFS as the primary endpoint. Other potential endpoints, including TTNT, progression of disease within 2 years, response rate, and minimal residual disease status are explored.

Phase III Clinical Trials in First-Line Follicular Lymphoma: A Review of Their Design and Interpretation

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is one of the most common subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma worldwide. Improved survival outcomes with rituximab-based therapy in clinical trials led to the establishment of rituximab-based immunochemotherapy as standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of FL. In the GALLIUM trial, obinutuzumab-based immunochemotherapy demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS), prolonged time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNT) and comparable overall survival (OS) compared with rituximab-based immunochemotherapy as 1L treatment for FL. Using GALLIUM as an example, this article aims to explain how improved outcomes in 1L treatment of FL have changed the landscape for the design and interpretation of future trials. As approved therapies for 1L FL already achieve good responses, it is becoming more difficult to design trials that demonstrate further treatment benefits with the currently accepted primary endpoints. New endpoints are needed to reflect the long remission times, low relapse rates, and impact of subsequent therapies in FL. PFS is used as a primary efficacy endpoint in registrational clinical trials for indolent malignancies like FL, where improvement in OS is not always observed due to the large number of patients and long study duration required to demonstrate a clear survival benefit. However, there are limitations to using PFS as the primary endpoint. Other potential endpoints, including TTNT, progression of disease within 2 years, response rate, and minimal residual disease status are explored.

Meta-analyses on progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in triple-negative breast cancer

PURPOSE

Earlier studies suggest progression-free survival (PFS) may be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer, which could shorten follow-up duration and speed up assessment of treatment effects. However, to our knowledge, the association between them is still unclear in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODS

A literature-based meta-analysis followed by correlation analysis was conducted in advanced or metastatic TNBC. Weighted multiple regression analysis was then used to test the strength of the association between medians of PFS and OS, and the association between HR_PFS and HR_OS.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized clinical trials published between January 2007 and August 2019, 31 median pairs for PFS and OS, and 17 pairs for HR_PFS and HR_OS from 3,880 patients were selected. The Pearson correlation coefficient between medians of PFS and OS was 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.92, p < 0.001), and the correlation coefficient between HR_PFS and HR_OS was 0.86 (95% CI 0.63-0.95, p < 0.001). Weighted multiple regression analysis showed HR_PFS was the most significant predictor of HR_OS among covariates analyzed (p < 0.001). Both the medians of PFS and OS correlation, and the HR_PFS and HR_OS correlation were 0.79 (p < 0.001), 0.80 (p = 0.001), respectively, in the 11 trials excluding immunotherapy and bevacizumab-based therapy trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests PFS can be strongly correlated with OS and considered a valid surrogate endpoint for OS in advanced or metastatic TNBC.

Evaluating the evidence behind the surrogate measures included in the FDA's table of surrogate endpoints as supporting approval of cancer drugs

BACKGROUND

In July 2018, the FDA first published a table listing all surrogate measures that it has used, and may accept for future use, in regulatory approval. However, the strength of surrogacy for those measures was not formally assessed. Using the case example of breast cancer, we aimed to evaluate the strength of correlation of surrogate measures listed in the FDA's Table with overall survival.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints was conducted in May 2019. All surrogate measures listed in the FDA table as appropriate for accelerated or regular approval for breast cancer were extracted. We identified studies evaluating the correlation of treatment benefit in the surrogate with treatment benefit in overall survival and extracted results from the correlation analysis.

FINDINGS

Five surrogate endpoints were listed for breast cancer in the FDA website: pathological complete response rates (pCR), event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rates (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS), of which pCR was listed as appropriate only for accelerated approval, while the rest were considered appropriate for accelerated or regular approval. No correlation study evaluated the correlation of treatment effects on EFS with that on OS. The results from correlation studies evaluating pCR, DFS, ORR, and PFS suggest that the treatment effects on none of these surrogate measures were strongly correlated with treatment effects on OS (r<0.85 or R²  < 0.7, except for DFS in HER2 positive early breast cancer (R²  = 0.75).

INTERPRETATION

Using breast cancer as an example, we evaluated the underlying evidence for the surrogate endpoints for solid tumors listed in the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints and found weak or missing correlations of treatment effects on these surrogates with treatment effects on OS . Surrogate measures should be predictive of clinical benefit to be useful in supporting regular FDA approval.

FUNDING

Work on this project was funded by the Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kesselheim is also supported by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.