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

Systematic review of the efficacy of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligoprogressive disease in metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of oligometastatic disease can improve survival and delay the requirement for systemic therapy. The benefits of SABR in oligoprogressive disease are less well-defined. Here, we evaluate the available evidence investigating the efficacy of SABR in the treatment of oligoprogressive disease.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out following PRISMA guidelines. Medline and Embase databases were searched using the terms "stereotactic radiotherapy" OR "SABR" OR "Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy" OR "SBRT" OR "SRT" AND "oligoprogression" in May 2022, June 2023, and February 2024. Studies were excluded where: SABR was used as a radical treatment, a specific oligoprogressive cohort could not be identified, publication was as a conference abstract or where fewer than 10 patients were recruited. Studies treating only brain metastases were also excluded. The site of primary tumour, oligoprogressive sites, rates of overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), local control (LC) and time to next systemic therapy were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-three full text studies were included. These consisted of single centre and multi-institutional observational studies, case series and phase II trials. Twenty-two studies were related to a specific tumour type: 12 urological cancer (9 prostate, 3 renal cancer), 6 non-small cell lung cancer, 2 colorectal cancer, 2 breast cancer and 11 were studies covering multiple tumour sites (5 studies involving SABR to a single organ and 6 studies involving SABR to multi-organ). Median PFS was >6 months in patients with oligoprogressive prostate, non-small cell lung cancer and renal cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SABR appears to have clinical benefit in oligoprogresssive prostate, lung, and renal patients. However, the optimal management of patients with oligoprogressive disease is still somewhat uncertain due to lack of prospective data. This will hopefully become clearer in the near future with the publication of further randomised trials.

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

Association of differential censoring with survival and suboptimal control arms among oncology clinical trials

Differential censoring, which refers to censoring imbalance between treatment arms, may bias the interpretation of survival outcomes in clinical trials. In 146 phase III oncology trials with statistically significant time-to-event surrogate primary endpoints, we evaluated the association between differential censoring in the surrogate primary endpoints, control arm adequacy, and the subsequent statistical significance of overall survival results. Twenty-four (16%) trials exhibited differential censoring that favored the control arm, whereas 15 (10%) exhibited differential censoring that favored the experimental arm. Positive overall survival was more common in control arm differential censoring trials (63%) than in trials without differential censoring (37%) or with experimental arm differential censoring (47%; odds ratio = 2.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 7.20; P = .04). Control arm differential censoring trials more frequently used suboptimal control arms at 46% compared with 20% without differential censoring and 13% with experimental arm differential censoring (odds ratio = 3.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.29 to 10.0; P = .007). The presence of control arm differential censoring in trials with surrogate primary endpoints, especially in those with overall survival conversion, may indicate an inadequate control arm and should be examined and explained.

Navigating Breast Cancer Oligometastasis and Oligoprogression: Current Landscape and Future Directions

PURPOSE

We examine the potential for curative approaches among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients by exploring the recent literature on local ablative therapies like surgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with oligometastatic (OM) breast cancer. We also cover therapies for MBC patients with oligoprogressive (OP) disease.

KEY FINDINGS

Surgery and SBRT have been studied for OM and OP breast cancer, mainly in retrospective or non-randomized trials. While many studies demonstrated favorable results, a cooperative study and single-institution trial found no support for surgery/SBRT in OM and OP cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While there is interest in applying local therapies to OM and OP breast cancer, the current randomized data does not back the routine use of surgery or SBRT, particularly when considering the potential for treatment-related toxicities. Future research should refine patient selection through advanced imaging and possibly explore these therapies specifically in patients with hormone receptor-positive or HER2-positive disease.

Low skeletal muscle mass predicts melanoma-specific survival in melanoma patients treated with adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade

PURPOSE

Adjuvant immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade(ICB) has greatly reduced the risk of recurrence and metastatic spread in early and advanced melanoma. However, not all patients benefit from adjuvant treatment: many patients show disease recurrence despite therapy, while those without recurrence harbor the risk for potentially irreversible adverse events. Biomarkers to select patients benefitting most from adjuvant therapy are currently lacking. As body composition assessment using CT images has shown promising results as a prognostic biomarker in stage IV melanoma, we aim to study the applicability of body composition parameters also in adjuvant melanoma treatment.

METHODS

We analyze body composition features via CT scans in a retrospective cohort of 109 patients with resected stage IIB-IV melanoma receiving an adjuvant first-line treatment with ICB in our department. In this analysis, we focus on the impact of body composition, especially the presence of low skeletal muscle mass (LSMM), on patients' survival and occurrence of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

In uni- and multivariate analyses, we identify an association between CT-measured LSMM and melanoma-specific survival in patients treated with adjuvant ICB. Furthermore, LSMM is associated with a lower risk for therapy-related AEs, especially hypothyroidism, fatigue, and xerostomia. Conventional serological biomarkers e.g. S100 and LDH and measures of adipose tissue compartments did not show a correlation with survival or the occurrence of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

LSMM constitutes a novel biomarker for melanoma-specific survival in patients treated with adjuvant ICB.

Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) and investigate the correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival (OS). A systematic literature search included phase I, II, and III clinical trials comparing ICIs to placebo or other therapies for uHCC treatment. Correlations between OS and surrogate endpoints were evaluated using meta-regression analyses and calculating the surrogate threshold effect (STE). The correlation analysis showed a weak association between OS and progression-free survival (PFS), with an R2 value of 0.352 (95% CI: 0.000-0.967). However, complete response (CR) exhibited a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.905, 95% CI: 0.728-1.000). Subgroup analyses revealed high correlations between OS and PFS, CR, stable disease (SD), and DC in phase III trials (R2: 0.827-0.922). For the ICI + IA group, significant correlations were observed between OS and SD, progressive disease (PD), and grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (R2: 0.713-0.969). Analyses of the correlation between survival benefit and risk of mortality across various time points showed a strong association within the first year (R2: 0.724-0.868) but a weak association beyond one year (R2: 0.406-0.499). In ICI trials for uHCC, PFS has limited utility as a surrogate endpoint for OS, while CR exhibits a strong correlation with OS. Subgroup analyses highlight high correlations between OS and PFS, SD, and DC in phase III trials. Notably, the ICI + IA group shows significant associations between OS and SD, PD, and grade 3-5 irAEs. These findings offer valuable insights for interpreting trial outcomes and selecting appropriate endpoints in future clinical studies involving ICIs for uHCC patients.

Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with cancer are treated with local therapy (LT), the proportion of late-phase clinical trials investigating local therapeutic interventions is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion, characteristics, and trends of phase 3 cancer clinical trials assessing the therapeutic value of LT over time.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of interventional randomized controlled trials in oncology published from 2002 through 2020 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trends and characteristics of LT trials were compared to all other trials.

RESULTS

Of 1877 trials screened, 794 trials enrolling 584,347 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 27 trials (3%) included a primary randomization assessing LT compared with 767 trials (97%) investigating systemic therapy or supportive care. Annual increase in the number of LT trials (slope [m] = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.39; p < .001) was outpaced by the increase of trials testing systemic therapy or supportive care (m = 7.57; 95% CI, 6.03-9.11; p < .001). LT trials were more often sponsored by cooperative groups (22 of 27 [81%] vs. 211 of 767 [28%]; p < .001) and less often sponsored by industry (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 609 of 767 [79%]; p < .001). LT trials were more likely to use overall survival as primary end point compared to other trials (13 of 27 [48%] vs. 199 of 767 [26%]; p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary late-phase oncology research, LT trials are increasingly under-represented, under-funded, and evaluate more challenging end points compared to other modalities. These findings strongly argue for greater resource allocation and funding mechanisms for LT clinical trials.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Most people who have cancer receive treatments directed at the site of their cancer, such as surgery or radiation. We do not know, however, how many trials test surgery or radiation compared to drug treatments (that go all over the body). We reviewed trials testing the most researched strategies (phase 3) completed between 2002 and 2020. Only 27 trials tested local treatments like surgery or radiation compared to 767 trials testing other treatments. Our study has important implications for funding research and understanding cancer research priorities.

Overall Survival After Treatment Failure Among Patients With Rectal Cancer

Importance

Oncologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer after developing local recurrence and/or distant metastases remain poorly studied.

Objective

To analyze the trend of overall survival after treatment failure for patients with rectal cancer within three consecutive phase 2 or 3 trials of the German Rectal Cancer Study Group.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study is a post hoc analysis of 3 randomized phase 2 or 3 trials (CAO/ARO/AIO-94, -04, and -12 trials, conducted in Germany) that included 1948 patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. The CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial recruited patients between February 1995 and September 2002, the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial recruited patients between July 2006 and February 2010, and the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial recruited patients between June 2015 and January 2018. Statistical analysis was conducted between September 2022 and March 2023.

Exposures

A total of 119 of 391 patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial group A, 295 of 1236 patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial, and 69 of 306 in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial experienced treatment failure (R2 resection or local recurrence or distant metastases) and were included in further analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Characteristics of treatment failure and overall survival were assessed in all 3 trial cohorts.

Results

Of the 1948 patients treated in the 3 trials, 15 were excluded because of missing data. Of the remaining 1933 patients (median age, 62.5 years [range, 19-84 years]; 1363 men [71%] and 570 women [29%]) with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (cT3 or 4 or cN+) treated within 3 consecutive clinical trials, 483 experienced treatment failure and were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 24-51 months) for all patients, overall survival after treatment failure was significantly improved in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial (at 3 years, 44% [IQR, 37%-51%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]) and further improved in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial (at 3 years, 73% [IQR, 60%-87%]; HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.18-0.54]) compared with the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial (at 3 years, 30% [IQR, 22%-39%]) (both P < .001). Distant metastasis was the main reason for treatment failure throughout a 5-year follow-up (range, 67%-87%), and the relative risk for treatment failure was highest in the first 18 months in all 3 trials. ypTNM stage was significantly associated with the risk and time interval to treatment failure. Improvement in overall survival after treatment failure was independent of sex.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study suggests that advancements in salvage strategies during the past decades have likely improved overall survival among patients with rectal cancer who experienced treatment failure.

The Role of Additional Staining in the Assessment of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) in Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Origin

INTRODUCTION

The Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) is a 4-tied histologic regression grading score for determining the response of peritoneal metastasis to chemotherapy. Peritoneal biopsies in every abdominal quadrant are recommended. A positive therapy response is defined as a decreasing or stable mean PRGS between 2 therapy cycles. The added value of periodic acid satin (PAS) and Ber-EP4 staining over HE staining for diagnosing PRGS1 (the absence of vital tumor cells) is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 339 biopsies obtained during 76 laparoscopies in 33 patients with peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer were analyzed. Biopsies classified as PRGS 1 (no residual tumor, n=95) or indefinite (n=50) were stained with PAS, and remaining indefinite or PRGS1 cases additionally stained with BerEP4.

RESULTS

After PAS-staining tumor cells were detected in 28 out of 145 biopsies (19%), the remaining 117 biopsies were immunostained with Ber-EP4. Tumor cells were detected in 22 biopsies (19%). In total, additional staining allowed the detection of residual tumor cells in 50 out of 339 biopsies (15%) and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 (21%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, 25% (24 out of 95) of initially tumor-free samples (PRGS1) showed residual tumor cells after additional staining with PAS and/or BerEp4. Immunohistochemistry provided important additional information (the presence of tumor cells) in 22 of all 339 biopsies (11.2%). Further staining reduced the instances of unclear diagnosis from 50 to 0 and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 patients (21%). We recommend additional staining in PRGS1 or unclear cases.

Challenges, Complexities, and Considerations in the Design and Interpretation of Late-Phase Oncology Trials

Optimal management of cancer patients relies heavily on late-phase oncology randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive understanding of the key considerations in designing and interpreting late-phase trials is crucial for improving subsequent trial design, execution, and clinical decision-making. In this review, we explore important aspects of late-phase oncology trial design. We begin by examining the selection of primary endpoints, including the advantages and disadvantages of using surrogate endpoints. We address the challenges involved in assessing tumor progression and discuss strategies to mitigate bias. We define informative censoring bias and its impact on trial results, including illustrative examples of scenarios that may lead to informative censoring. We highlight the traditional roles of the log-rank test and hazard ratio in survival analyses, along with their limitations in the presence of nonproportional hazards as well as an introduction to alternative survival estimands, such as restricted mean survival time or MaxCombo. We emphasize the distinctions between the design and interpretation of superiority and noninferiority trials, and compare Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches. Finally, we discuss appropriate utilization of phase II and phase III trial results in shaping clinical management recommendations and evaluate the inherent risks and benefits associated with relying on phase II data for treatment decisions.

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe.

DESIGN

Document content analysis.

SETTING

European Medicines Agency.

PARTICIPANTS

Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports).

RESULTS

29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

Analysis of Efficacy-To-Safety Ratio of Angiogenesis-Inhibitors Based Therapies in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review combined with a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (12,081 patients), evaluating overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 toxic effects, type, and number of all adverse effects. (3) Results: The analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; I² = 77%; p < 0.00001) in first-line (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = 0.0003) or recurrent cancer (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; p < 0.00001) and regardless of the type of anti-angiogenesis drug used (Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, VEGF-receptors (VEGF-R) inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; p = 0.03). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent neoplasms, both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant neoplasms. Grade ≥ 3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/hemorrhagic events, and gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound-related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4) Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there are little-to-no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions, a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.

Comprehensive evaluation of surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival in trials with PD1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

PD1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer treatment. Although there is controversy about the accuracy of surrogate endpoints in the ICI setting to predict overall survival (OS), these endpoints are commonly used in confirmatory trials. Here we aimed to explore the validity of classical and novel surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCT) that combine ICI plus chemotherapy (CT) in the first-line setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify RCT investigating anti-PD1/PD-L1 drugs plus CT versus CT alone. We performed (i) arm-level analysis to evaluate predictors of median OS (mOS) and (ii) comparison-level analysis for OS hazard ratio (HR) estimations. Linear regression models weighted by trial size were fitted and adjusted R² values were reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs involving 22,341 patients met the inclusion criteria (17 non-small cell lung, 9 gastroesophageal and 13 in other cancers) with ten different ICI under study. Overall, ICI plus CT improved OS (HR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.73-0.80). In the arm-level analysis, the best mOS prediction was obtained with a new endpoint that combines median duration of response and ORR (mDoR-ORR) and with median PFS (R² = 0.5 both). In the comparison-level analysis, PFS HR showed a moderate association with OS HR (R² = 0.52). Early OS read-outs were highly associated with final OS outcomes (R² = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

The association between surrogate endpoints and OS in first-line RCT combining anti-PD1/PD-L1 and CT is moderate-low. Early OS read-outs showed a good association with final OS HR while the mDOR-ORR endpoint could help to better design confirmatory trials after single-arm phase II trials.

Overall Survival Results From the POLO Trial: A Phase III Study of Active Maintenance Olaparib Versus Placebo for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

The phase III POLO study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for active olaparib maintenance therapy versus placebo for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA mutation. Here, we report the final analysis of overall survival (OS) and other secondary end points.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation whose disease had not progressed after ≥ 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:2 to active maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points included OS, time to second disease progression or death, time to first and second subsequent cancer therapies or death, time to discontinuation of study treatment or death, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

In total, 154 patients were randomly assigned (olaparib, n = 92; placebo, n = 62). No statistically significant OS benefit was observed (median 19.0 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.22; P = .3487). Kaplan-Meier OS curves separated at approximately 24 months, and the estimated 3-year survival after random assignment was 33.9% versus 17.8%, respectively. Median time to first subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < .0001), time to second subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.89; P = .0111), and time to discontinuation of study treatment or death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.63; P < .0001) significantly favored olaparib. The HR for second disease progression or death favored olaparib without reaching statistical significance (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.02; P = .0613). Olaparib was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

CONCLUSION

Although no statistically significant OS benefit was observed, the HR numerically favored olaparib, which also conferred clinically meaningful benefits including increased time off chemotherapy and long-term survival in a subset of patients.

Utilizing restricted mean duration of response for efficacy evaluation of cancer treatments

In oncology clinical trials, response-based endpoints (time to response, objective response, duration of response [DOR]) are commonly used to detect therapeutic effect to support proof-of-concept or submission decisions. The restricted mean DOR (RMDOR) was recently proposed as a composite nonparametric method to efficiently quantify the treatment effect related to tumor reductions, which offers an intuitive way to perform statistical inference in cross-arm comparison and has since been applied in some Phase III studies. In this paper, we provide further technical details and asymptotic properties of the RMDOR method and discuss the selection of the truncation time. A simulation study is conducted comparing the performance of the proposed method with existing standard methods in hypothesis testing and quantification of treatment efficacy. We use two oncology Phase III examples to illustrate the method. An R package PBIR and a SAS macro are available to perform statistical inference based on the RMDOR.

Local Therapy for Oligoprogressive Disease: A Systematic Review of Prospective Trials

OBJECTIVES

The successes of local therapy for oligometastatic cancers cannot be extrapolated to oligoprogressive disease (OPD) because they are distinct clinical entities. Given the limited prospective data on OPD to date, summative analyses are urgently needed.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for this PRISMA-guided systematic review were as follows. First, only prospective data were included. Second, progression had to have occurred on active/ongoing systemic therapy. Third, the number of progressing areas of disease had to be explicitly listed and ≤5 in number. Fourth, all progressing sites had to undergo local therapy (radiotherapy/surgery/non-radiation ablative procedures).

RESULTS

Eight trials met criteria (summing 290 patients), the vast majority of which utilized stereotactic radiotherapy as the local modality (most commonly, 19-20 Gy in 1 fraction, 27-33 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35-50 Gy in 5 fractions). A study on NSCLC demonstrated that stereotactic radiotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to historical values with systemic therapy alone. Two additional studies on EGFR-mutated NSCLC also showed acceptable PFS with local therapy, particularly in patients who oligoprogressed on osimertinib. The only randomized trial analyzed herein showed that local therapy improved PFS for NSCLC but not breast cancer. Two trials in castration-resistant prostate cancer illustrated that a substantial proportion of patients did not require any changes in hormonal therapy and/or delayed the need to change systemic therapies. Lastly, two trials of renal cell carcinoma showed high (90-100%) local control and median PFS of 9 months, and potentially a prolonged time to change systemic therapy. Lastly, from all patients in all trials, local therapy was tolerated well, with only 7 instances of grade 3+ toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited data, local therapy for OPD is safe and yields encouraging short-term preliminary outcomes, but trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required for more robust conclusions.

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.

Optimize Local Therapy for Oligometastatic and Oligoprogressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer to Enhance Survival

Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly heterogeneous, and there are patients with limited areas of metastases (oligometastases) or progression (oligoprogression) whose natural history and prognosis can be considerably more favorable. As a result, local therapy may offer these patients a chance at clinically meaningful disease control and/or cure. This review begins by describing the current status of the existing prospective data, including evidence of overall survival improvements from multiple randomized trials. Given the nascence of this realm, the review then examines ongoing controversies and unresolved issues regarding local therapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogression. First, the role of local therapy in the setting of targeted therapies and immunotherapy is discussed, because most published randomized trials of local therapy have been performed in the context of chemotherapy, which is no longer the standard of care for most patients with metastatic NSCLC. Refining patient selection for local therapy is then reviewed, including clinical factors (such as control of the primary and regional lymph node sites, the heterogeneous definitions of oligometastases/oligoprogression, and the underrepresentation of brain metastases in existing randomized data) and novel pathologic/molecular biomarkers. Next, because there also remains no consensus regarding the optimal modality of local therapy, the advantages and disadvantages of stereotactic radiotherapy, surgery, and other ablative techniques are discussed. Subsequently, methods to optimize radiotherapy are examined, including controversies regarding the optimal dose/fractionation and timing/sequencing scheme. A discussion regarding potentially extending the existing data to polymetastatic NSCLC follows. The review concludes with remarks regarding prudently designing randomized trials of local therapy going forward, including the benefits and drawbacks of specific endpoints meriting further testing in this unique population.

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.

A comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis: the role of anti-angiogenic agents in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

The efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesize evidence of their comparative effectiveness for improving overall survival (OS) among EOC patients. We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to February 2021. We performed an NMA with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate comparative effectiveness among different AAAs in chemotherapy-naïve and recurrent EOC. P-score was used to provide an effectiveness hierarchy ranking. Sensitivity NMA was carried out by focusing on studies that reported high-risk chemotherapy-naïve, platinum-resistant, and platinum-sensitive EOC. The primary outcome was OS. We identified 23 RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of AAAs. In recurrent EOC, concurrent use of trebananib (10 mg/kg) with chemotherapy was likely to be the best option (P-score: 0.88, HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.94; 2.94). The NMA indicated that bevacizumab plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance bevacizumab (P-score: 0.99) and pazopanib combined with chemotherapy (P-score: 0.79) both had the highest probability of being the best intervention for improving OS in high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-resistant EOC, respectively. AAAs may not play a significant clinical role in non-high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-sensitive EOC.

Estimands for overall survival in clinical trials with treatment switching in oncology

An addendum of the ICH E9 guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials was released in November 2019 introducing the estimand framework. This new framework aims to align trial objectives and statistical analyses by requiring a precise definition of the inferential quantity of interest, that is, the estimand. This definition explicitly accounts for intercurrent events, such as switching to new anticancer therapies for the analysis of overall survival (OS), the gold standard in oncology. Traditionally, OS in confirmatory studies is analyzed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing treatment groups as they were initially randomized regardless of whether treatment switching occurred and regardless of any subsequent therapy (treatment-policy strategy). Regulatory authorities and other stakeholders often consider ITT results as most relevant. However, the respective estimand only yields a clinically meaningful comparison of two treatment arms if subsequent therapies are already approved and reflect clinical practice. We illustrate different scenarios where subsequent therapies are not yet approved drugs and thus do not reflect clinical practice. In such situations the hypothetical strategy could be more meaningful from patient's and prescriber's perspective. The cross-industry Oncology Estimand Working Group (www.oncoestimand.org) was initiated to foster a common understanding and consistent implementation of the estimand framework in oncology clinical trials. This paper summarizes the group's recommendations for appropriate estimands in the presence of treatment switching, one of the key intercurrent events in oncology clinical trials. We also discuss how different choices of estimands may impact study design, data collection, trial conduct, analysis, and interpretation.

Considerations for Clinical Trials Testing Radiotherapy Combined With Immunotherapy for Metastatic Disease

Metastatic cancer is inherently heterogeneous, and patients with metastatic disease can experience vastly different oncologic outcomes depending on several patient- and disease-specific characteristics. Designing trials for such a diverse population is challenging yet necessary to improve treatment outcomes for metastatic-previously thought to be incurable-disease. Here we review core considerations for designing and conducting clinical trials involving radiation therapy and immunotherapy for patients with metastatic cancer.

Food and Drug Administration approvals in phase 3 Cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Phase 3 oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can lead to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals. In this study, we aim to identify trial-related factors associated with trials leading to subsequent FDA drug approvals.

METHODS

We performed a database query through the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to search for oncologic phase 3 RCTs on February 2020. We screened all trials for therapeutic, cancer-specific, phase 3, randomized, multi-arm trials. We then identified whether a trial was used for subsequent FDA drug approval through screening of FDA approval announcements.

RESULTS

In total, 790 trials were included in our study, with 225 trials (28.4%) generating data that were subsequently used for FDA approvals. Of the 225 FDA approvals identified, 65 (28.9%) were based on trials assessing overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint (PEP), two (0.9%) were based on trials with a quality of life (QoL) PEP, and 158 approvals (70.2%) were based on trials with other PEP (P = 0.01). FDA approvals were more common among industry funded-trials (219, 97.3%; P < 0.001), and less common among trials sponsored by national cooperative groups (21, 9.3%; P < 0.001). Finally, increased pre-hoc power and meeting patients' accrual target were associated with FDA approvals (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of FDA approvals are based on data generated from trials analyzing surrogate primary endpoints and trials receiving industry funding. Additional studies are required to understand the complexity of FDA approvals.

Trial Sponsorship and Time to Reporting for Phase 3 Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials

The pace of clinical trial data generation and publication is an area of interest within clinical oncology; however, little is known about the dynamics and covariates of time to reporting (TTR) of trial results. To assess these, ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase three clinical trials for patients with metastatic solid tumors, and the factors associated with TTR from enrollment completion to publication were analyzed. Based on the 319 included trials, cooperative-group-sponsored trials were reported at a slower rate than non-cooperative-group trials (median 37.5 vs. 31.0 months; p < 0.001), while industry-funded studies were reported at a faster rate than non-industry-supported trials (31.0 vs. 40.0 months; p = 0.005). Furthermore, successful trials (those meeting their primary endpoint) were reported at a faster rate than unsuccessful studies (27.5 vs. 36.0 months; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that industry funding was independently associated with a shorter TTR (p = 0.006), while cooperative group sponsorship was not associated with a statistically significant difference in TTR (p = 0.18). These data underscore an opportunity to improve cooperative group trial efficiency by reducing TTR.