Validating ORR and PFS as surrogate endpoints in phase II and III clinical trials for NSCLC patients: difference exists in the strength of surrogacy in various trial settings

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically validate the performance of surrogate endpoints in phase II and III clinical trials for NSCLC patients under various trial settings.

METHODS

A literature search retrieved all registered phase II and III trials of NSCLC patients in which OS, with at least one of ORR and PFS, were reported. Associations between surrogate and true endpoints were assessed on two levels. On the arm level, three pairs of correlations, i.e., ORR vs. median OS, ORR vs. median PFS, and median PFS vs. median OS, were analysed using Spearman's rho. On the trial level, similarly, three pairs of correlations, i.e., ΔORR vs. HR of OS, ΔORR vs. HR of PFS, and HR of PFS vs. HR of OS, were analysed using Spearman's rho and weighted linear regression model respectively. Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore surrogacy under various trial settings.

RESULTS

At arm level, three pairs of correlations are all high (Spearman's rho = 0.700, 0.831, 0.755, respectively). At trial level, there is a low correlation between ΔORR and HR of OS, a high correlation between ΔORR and HR of PFS and a moderate correlation between HR of PFS and HR of OS (Spearman's rho = 0.462, 0.764, 0.584, respectively). In the sensitivity analysis, we find correlations between surrogate and true endpoints vary by different trial settings. It is noteworthy that the strength of surrogacy of these intermediate endpoints in targeted therapy is greater than that in immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

According to the arm-level and trial level-analysis, we suggest that in phase II and III trials of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for NSCLC patients: 1) ORR lacks validity for the surrogacy of OS, excluding in first-line therapy, and 2) ORR may be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for PFS, and 3) PFS may be considered a modest surrogacy for OS, with better performance in first-line therapy trials. Moreover, to provide more convincing evidence of surrogacy of the surrogate endpoints, patient-level analyses are in desperate need.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer from Genomics to Therapeutics: A Framework for Community Practice Integration to Arrive at Personalized Therapy Strategies

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease, and therapeutic management has advanced with the identification of various key oncogenic mutations that promote lung cancer tumorigenesis. Subsequent studies have developed targeted therapies against these oncogenes in the hope of personalizing therapy based on the molecular genomics of the tumor. This review presents approved treatments against actionable mutations in NSCLC as well as promising targets and therapies. We also discuss the current status of molecular testing practices in community oncology sites that would help to direct oncologists in lung cancer decision-making. We propose a collaborative framework between community practice and academic sites that can help improve the utilization of personalized strategies in the community, through incorporation of increased testing rates, virtual molecular tumor boards, vendor-based oncology clinical pathways, and an academic-type singular electronic health record system.

Multitrial Evaluation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in First-Line Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

We previously reported that progression-free survival (PFS) may be a candidate surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) in first-line extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) using data from three randomized trials (Foster, Cancer 2011). In this validation study (N0424-Alliance), we assessed the patient-level and trial-level surrogacy of PFS using data from seven new first-line phase II/III ES-SCLC trials and across all 10 trials as well (seven new, three previous).

METHODS

Individual patient data were utilized across the seven new trials (2259 patients) and all 10 trials (2855 patients). Patient-level surrogacy (Kendall's τ) was assessed using the Clayton copula bivariate survival model. Trial-level surrogacy was assessed through association of the log hazard ratios on OS and PFS across trials, including weighted (by trial size) least squares regression (WLS R²) of Cox model effects and correlation of the copula effects (copula R²). The minimum effect on the surrogate (MES) needed to detect a nonzero treatment effect on OS was also calculated.

RESULTS

The median OS and PFS across all 10 trials were 9.8 and 5.9 months, respectively. PFS showed strong surrogacy within the 7 new trials (copula R² = 0.90 [standard error = 0.27], WLS R² = 0.83 [95% confidence interval: 0.43, 0.95]; MES = 0.67, and Kendall's τ = 0.58) and across all 10 trials (copula R² = 0.81 [standard errors = 0.25], WLS R² = 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.91], MES = 0.70, and Kendall's τ = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

PFS demonstrated strong surrogacy for OS in first-line ES-SCLC based on this external validation study of individual patient data. PFS is a good alternative end point to OS and should be considered when resource constraints (time or patient) might make it useful or desirable in place of OS. Additional analyses are needed to assess its appropriateness for targeted agents in this disease setting.

The clinical viewpoint: definitions, limitations of RECIST, practical considerations of measurement

In selecting an endpoint in clinical trial design, it is important to consider that the endpoint is both reliably measured and clinically meaningful. As such, overall survival (OS) has traditionally been considered the most clinically relevant and convincing endpoint in clinical trial design as long as it is accompanied by preservation in quality of life. However, progression-free survival (PFS) is increasingly more prominent in clinical trial design because of feasibility issues (smaller sample sizes and shorter follow-up). PFS has the advantage of taking into account not only responsive disease, but stable disease as well, an issue of particular importance in the relapsed and refractory setting in which therapies are often associated with a minimal to nil response but may still confer a survival advantage. Finally, PFS has a significant advantage in molecularly selected populations, in whom OS advantages are difficult to detect due to the effects of crossover. With an understanding of the limitations and biases that are introduced with PFS as a primary endpoint, we believe that PFS is not only a viable but also a necessary alternative to OS in assessing the efficacy of selected novel-targeted therapies in molecularly defined cancer populations. Ultimately, the selection of a clinical trial endpoint should not be based on a one-size-fits all approach; rather, it should be based on the specifics of the therapeutic strategy being tested and the population under study.

Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival

BACKGROUND

Whether progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) is the more appropriate endpoint in clinical trials of metastatic cancer is controversial. In some disease and treatment settings, an improvement in PFS does not result in an improved OS.

METHODS

We partitioned OS into two parts and expressed it as the sum of PFS and survival postprogression (SPP). We simulated randomized clinical trials with two arms that had respective medians for PFS of 6 and 9 months. We assumed no treatment difference in median SPP. We found the probability of a statistically significant benefit in OS for various median SPP and observed P values for PFS. We compared the sample sizes required for PFS vs OS for various median SPP. We compare our results with the literature regarding surrogacy of PFS for OS by use of the correlation between hazard ratios for PFS and OS. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

For a trial with observed P value for improvement in PFS of .001, there was a greater than 90% probability for statistical significance in OS if median SPP was 2 months but less than 20% if median SPP was 24 months. For a trial requiring 280 patients to detect a 3-month difference in PFS, 350 and 2440 patients, respectively, were required to have the same power for detecting a real difference in OS that is carried over from the 3-month benefit in PFS when the median SPP was 2 and 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing SPP is important in understanding treatment effects. For clinical trials with a PFS benefit, lack of statistical significance in OS does not imply lack of improvement in OS, especially for diseases with long median SPP. Although there may be no treatment effect on SPP, its variability so dilutes the OS comparison that statistical significance is likely lost. OS is a reasonable primary endpoint when median SPP is short but is too high a bar when median SPP is long, such as longer than 12 months.

Time to progression as a surrogate marker for overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

With the increasing number of active compounds available for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, it is useful to evaluate whether surrogate end points can replace survival in randomized trials for the rapid and efficient assessment of efficacy. We examined the association between differences in overall survival and time to progression (TTP) using a literature survey.

METHODS

We used median TTP (MTTP) and median survival time (MST) from 54 phase III trials of first-line chemotherapy involving 23,457 advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in a multiple linear regression analysis. The MST ratio in each trial was defined as the ratio of MST in the investigational arm to that in the reference arm. The MTTP ratio was defined similarly.

RESULTS

The degree of the association between the MST and MTTP ratios was only moderate both in the overall cohort (R(2) = 0.33) and various trial settings (R(2) = 0.16-0.51), although the MTTP ratio was an independent factor influencing the MST ratio in the multiple regression model (p < 0.01). This means that the MTTP ratio could account for less than half of the variance in the MST ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The TTP potentially acts as a surrogate marker, but may not be still a definitive alternative in the first-line setting.

Phase II study of the anti-insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor antibody CP-751,871 in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in previously untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a phase II study of combination of the anti-insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor antibody CP-751,871 with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PCI) in advanced treatment-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 6), and CP-751,871 10 to 20 mg/kg (PCI(10), PCI(20)) or paclitaxel and carboplatin alone (PC) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. PCI(10-20) patients could continue CP-751,871 (figitumumab) treatment after chemotherapy discontinuation. Patients treated with PC experiencing disease progression were eligible to receive CP-751,871 at investigator's discretion. An additional nonrandomized single-arm cohort of 30 patients with nonadenocarcinoma tumor histology receiving PCI(20) was enrolled on completion of the randomized study.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were enrolled onto the randomized portion of the study. Safety and efficacy information are available for 151 patients (98 patients treated with PCI and 53 patients treated with PC). Forty-eight patients treated with PCI received PCI(10) and 50 patients received PCI(20) in two sequential stages. Twenty of 53 patients treated with PC received CP-751,871 after disease progression. PCI was well tolerated. Fifty-four percent of patients treated with PCI and 42% of patients treated with PC had objective responses. Sixteen of 23 patients assessable for efficacy in the nonrandomized single-arm extension cohort also responded to treatment. Of note, 14 of 18 randomly assigned and 11 of 14 nonrandomly assigned patients treated with PCI with squamous cell carcinoma histology had response to treatment, including nine objective responses in bulky disease. Responses were also observed in two patients with squamous histology receiving CP-751,871 on PC discontinuation. PCI(20)/PC hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.8 to 0.56, according to censorship.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that PCI(20) is safe and effective in patients with NSCLC.