Comparison of sequential and joint nonlinear mixed effects modeling of tumor kinetics and survival following Durvalumab treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Tutorial on Conditional Simulations With a Tumor Size-Overall Survival Model to Support Oncology Drug Development

The gold standard for regulatory approval in oncology is overall survival (OS). Because OS data are initially limited, early drug development decisions are often based on early efficacy endpoints, such as objective response rate and progression-free survival. Tumor size (TS)-OS models provide a framework to support decision-making on potential late-stage success based on early readouts, through leveraging TS data with limited follow-up and treatment-agnostic TS-OS link functions, to predict longer-term OS. Conditional simulations (also known as Bayesian forecasting) with TS-OS models can be used to simulate long-term OS outcomes for an ongoing study, conditional on the available TS and OS data at interim data cuts of the same study. This tutorial provides a comprehensive overview of the steps involved in using such conditional simulations to support better informed drug development decisions in oncology. The tutorial covers the selection of the TS-OS framework model; applying the TS-OS model to the interim data; performing conditional simulations; generating relevant output; as well as correct interpretation and communication of the output for decision making.

Integrated modeling of biomarkers, survival and safety in clinical oncology drug development

Model-based approaches, including population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling, have become an essential component in the clinical phases of oncology drug development. Over the past two decades, models have evolved to describe the temporal dynamics of biomarkers and tumor size, treatment-related adverse events, and their links to survival. Integrated models, defined here as models that incorporate at least two pharmacodynamic/ outcome variables, are applied to answer drug development questions through simulations, e.g., to support the exploration of alternative dosing strategies and study designs in subgroups of patients or other tumor indications. It is expected that these pharmacometric approaches will be expanded as regulatory authorities place further emphasis on early and individualized dosage optimization and inclusive patient-focused development strategies. This review provides an overview of integrated models in the literature, examples of the considerations that need to be made when applying these advanced pharmacometric approaches, and an outlook on the expected further expansion of model-informed drug development of anticancer drugs.

Predicting Tumor Volume Doubling Time and Progression-Free Survival in Untreated Patients from Patient-Derived-Xenograft (PDX) Models: A Translational Model-Based Approach

Tumor volume doubling time (TVDT) has been shown to be a potential surrogate marker of biological tumor activity. However, its availability in clinics is strongly limited due to ethical and practical reasons, as its assessment requires at least two subsequent tumor volume measurements in untreated patients. Here, a translational modeling framework to predict TVDT distributions in untreated cancer patient populations from tumor growth data in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mice is proposed. Eleven solid cancer types were considered. For each of them, a set of tumor growth studies in PDX mice was selected and analyzed through a mathematical model to characterize the distribution of the exponential tumor growth rate in mice. Then, assuming an exponential growth of the tumor mass in humans, the growth rates were scaled from PDX mice to humans through an allometric scaling approach and used to predict TVDTs in untreated patients. A very good agreement was found between model predicted and clinically observed TVDTs, with 91% of the predicted TVDT medians fell within 1.5-fold of observations. Further, exploiting the intrinsic relationship between tumor growth dynamics and progression free survival (PFS), the exponential growth rates in humans were used to generate the expected PFS curves in absence of anticancer treatment. Predicted curves were extremely close to published PFS data from studies involving patient cohorts treated with supportive care or low effective therapies. The proposed approach shows promise as a potential tool to increase knowledge about TVDT in humans without the need of directly measuring tumor dimensions in untreated patients, and to predict PFS curves in untreated patients, that could fill the absence of placebo-controlled arms against which to compare treaded arms during clinical trials. However, further validation and refinement are needed to fully assess its effectiveness in this regard.

Tumor growth and overall survival modeling to support decision making in phase Ib/II trials: A comparison of the joint and two-stage approaches

Model-based tumor growth inhibition (TGI) metrics are increasingly used to predict overall survival (OS) data in Phase III immunotherapy clinical trials. However, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the differences between two-stage or joint modeling methods to leverage Phase I/II trial data and help early decision-making. A recent study showed that TGI metrics such as the tumor growth rate constant KG may have good operating characteristics as early endpoints. This previous study used a two-stage approach that is easy to implement and intuitive but prone to bias as it does not account for the relationship between the longitudinal and time-to-event processes. A relevant alternative is to use a joint modeling approach. In the present article, we evaluated the operating characteristics of TGI metrics using joint modeling, assuming an OS model previously developed using historical data. To that end, we used TGI and OS data from IMpower150-a study investigating atezolizumab in over 750 patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer-to mimic randomized Phase Ib/II trials varying in terms of number of patients included (40 to 15 patients per arm) and follow-up duration (24 to 6 weeks after the last patient included). In this context, joint modeling did not outperform the two-stage approach and provided similar operating characteristics in all the investigated scenarios. Our results suggest that KG geometric mean ratio could be used to support early decision-making provided that 30 or more patients per arm are included and followed for at least 12 weeks.

Realizing the promise of Project Optimus: Challenges and emerging opportunities for dose optimization in oncology drug development

Project Optimus is a US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiative aimed at reforming the dose selection and optimization paradigm in oncology drug development. This project seeks to bring together pharmaceutical companies, international regulatory agencies, academic institutions, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. Although there is much promise in this initiative, there are several challenges that need to be addressed, including multidimensionality of the dose optimization problem in oncology, the heterogeneity of cancer and patients, importance of evaluating long-term tolerability beyond dose-limiting toxicities, and the lack of reliable biomarkers for long-term efficacy. Through the lens of Totality of Evidence and with the mindset of model-informed drug development, we offer insights into dose optimization by building a quantitative knowledge base integrating diverse sources of data and leveraging quantitative modeling tools to build evidence for drug dosage considering exposure, disease biology, efficacy, toxicity, and patient factors. We believe that rational dose optimization can be achieved in oncology drug development, improving patient outcomes by maximizing therapeutic benefit while minimizing toxicity.

Comparison of two-stage and joint TGI-OS modeling using data from six atezolizumab clinical studies in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Two-stage and joint modeling approaches are the two main approaches to investigate the link between longitudinal tumor size data and overall survival (OS) and anticipate clinical trial outcome. We here used a large database composed of one phase II and five phase III clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab (an immunotherapy) in monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapies in 3699 patients with non-small cell lung cancer to evaluate the differences between both approaches in terms of parameter estimates, magnitude of covariate effects, and ability to predict OS. Although the two-stage approach may underestimate the magnitude of the impact of tumor growth rate (KG ) on OS compared to joint modeling approach (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.42-2.52 vs. 0.25-2.85, respectively, for individual KG varying from the 5th and 95th percentiles), this difference did not lead into poorer performance of the two-stage approach to describe the OS distribution in the six clinical studies. Overall, two-stage and joint modeling approaches accurately predicted OS HR with a median (range) difference with the observed OS HR of 0.02 (0.01-0.18) and 0.03 (0.00-0.19), in all cases considered, respectively (e.g., for IMpower150: 0.80 [0.66-0.95] vs. 0.82 [0.70-0.95], respectively, whereas the observed OS HR was 0.80). In our setting, the two-stage approach accurately predicted the benefit of atezolizumab on OS. Further work is needed to verify if similar results are achieved using phase Ib or phase II clinical trials where the number of patients and measurements is limited as well as in other cancer indications.