Restricted mean survival time as outcome measure in advanced urothelial bladder cancer: analysis of 4 clinical studies

Restricted Mean Survival Time-Can It Be a New Tool in Assessing the Survival of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) is the first and most lethal cancer in the world; identifying new methods to treat it, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), is needed. ICIs treatment is very effective, but it comes bundled with a series of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Restricted mean survival time (RMST) is an alternative tool for assessing the patients' survival when the proportional hazard assumption (PH) fails.

METHODS

We included in this analytical cross-sectional observational survey patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treated for at least 6 months with ICIs in the first- and second-line settings. Using RMST, we estimated the overall survival (OS) of patients by dividing them into two groups. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of the prognostic factors on OS.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included (68.4% men, mean age 63.8), and 34/79 (43%) presented irAEs. The OS RMST of the entire group was 30.91 months, with a survival median of 22 months. Thirty-two out of seventy-nine (40.5%) died before we ended our study. The OS RMST and death percentage favored the patients who presented irAEs (long-rank test, p = 0.036). The OS RMST of patients with irAEs was 35.7 months, with a number of deaths of 12/34 (35.29%), while the OS RMST of the patients without irAEs was 17 months, with a number of deaths of 20/45 (44.44%). The OS RMST by the line of treatment favored the first line of treatment. In this group, the presence of irAEs significantly impacted the survival of these patients (p = 0.0083). Moreover, patients that experienced low-grade irAEs had a better OS RMST. This result has to be cautiously regarded because of the small number of patients stratified according to the grades of irAEs. The prognostic factors for the survival were: the presence of irAEs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and the number of organs affected by metastasis. The risk of dying was 2.13 times higher for patients without irAEs than for the patients who presented irAEs, (CI) 95% of 1.03 to 4.39. Moreover, by increasing the ECOG performance status by one point, the risk of death increased by 2.28 times, with a CI 95% of 1.46 to 3.58, while the involvement of more metastatic organs was associated with a 1.60 times increase in the death risk, with a CI 95% of 1.09 to 2.36. Age and the type of tumor were not predictive for this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The RMST is a new tool that helps researchers to better address the survival in studies with ICIs treatment where the PH fails, and the long-rank test is less efficient due to the existence of the long-term responses and delayed treatment effects. Patients with irAEs have a better prognosis than those without irAEs in the first-line settings. The ECOG performance status and the number of organs affected by metastasis must be considered when selecting patients for ICIs treatment.

Application of the IPDfromKM-Shiny Method to Compare the Efficacy of Novel Treatments Aimed at the Same Disease Condition: A Report of 14 Analyses

In the area of evidence-based medicine, the IPDfromKM-Shiny method is an innovative method of survival analysis, midway between artificial intelligence and advanced statistics. Its main characteristic is that an original software investigates the Kaplan-Meier graphs of trials so that individual-patient data are reconstructed. These reconstructed patients represent a new form of original clinical material. The typical objective of investigations based on this method is to analyze the available evidence, especially in oncology, to perform indirect comparisons, and determine the place in therapy of individual agents. This review examined the most recent applications of the IPDfromKM-Shiny method, in which a new web-based software—published in 2021—was used. Reported here are 14 analyses, mostly focused on oncological treatments. Indirect comparisons were based on overall survival or progression free survival. Each of these analyses provided original information to compare treatments with one another and select the most appropriate depending on patient characteristics. These analyses can also be useful to assess equivalence from a regulatory viewpoint. All investigations stressed the importance of heterogeneity to better interpret the evidence generated by IPDfromKM-Shiny investigations. In conclusion, these investigations showed that the reconstruction of individual patient data through this online tool is a promising new method for analyzing trials based on survival endpoints. This new approach deserves further investigation, particularly in the area of indirect comparisons.

The "One-to-Many" Survival Analysis to Evaluate a New Treatment in Comparison With Therapeutic Alternatives Based on Reconstructed Patient Data: Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Standard of Care in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Objective This paper presents a preliminary experience based on the "one-to-many" approach of the Shiny method. Numerous (or "many") treatments for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma have recently been reviewed. More recently, "one" potentially innovative treatment has been made available. Our analysis was aimed at assessing the benefits of the new treatment in comparison with the alternatives developed previously. Materials and methods The Shiny method was employed to reconstruct patient-level survival data. This information allowed us to compare the Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of five treatments previously available (i.e., pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, vinflunine, and standard chemotherapy) with the potentially innovative agent represented by enfortumab vedotin. Overall survival was evaluated for each agent. Statistical tests to assess head-to-head indirect comparisons were performed through standard survival analysis. The hazard ratio (HR) was the main parameter. Results In ranking the efficacy across these agents, enfortumab vedotin was first, followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Standard chemotherapy and vinflunine were the least effective. The remarkable survival results of enfortumab were, to some extent, influenced by the slightly better prognosis of the population enrolled in the enfortumab trial in comparison with patients enrolled in the three ICI trials. Conclusions The experience described herein shows that, when a potential innovative treatment (enfortumab vedotin) is developed in an already investigated area (metastatic urothelial cancer), the Shiny method can be applied according to the "one-to-many" approach. This allows us to quickly assess the place in therapy of the new treatment (the "one") and to evaluate whether the new treatment determines a relevant incremental benefit in comparison with previous treatments (the "many").

Combining TMEM Doorway Score and MenaCalc Score Improves the Prediction of Distant Recurrence Risk in HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

to develop several digital pathology-based machine vision algorithms for combining TMEM and MenaCalc scores and determine if a combination of these biomarkers improves the ability to predict development of distant metastasis over and above that of either biomarker alone.

METHODS

This retrospective study included a subset of 130 patients (65 patients with no recurrence and 65 patients with a recurrence at 5 years) from the Calgary Tamoxifen cohort of breast cancer patients. Patients had confirmed invasive breast cancer and received adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Of the 130 patients, 86 cases were suitable for analysis in this study. Sequential sections of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded patient samples were stained for TMEM doorways (immunohistochemistry triple staining) and MenaCalc (immunofluorescence staining). Stained sections were imaged, aligned, and then scored for TMEM doorways and MenaCalc. Different ways of combining TMEM doorway and MenaCalc scores were evaluated and compared to identify the best performing combined marker by using the restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference method.

RESULTS

the best performing combined marker gave an RMST difference of 5.27 years (95% CI: 1.71-8.37), compared to 3.56 years (95% CI: 0.95-6.1) for the associated standalone TMEM doorway analysis and 2.94 years (95% CI: 0.25-5.87) for the associated standalone MenaCalc analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

combining TMEM doorway and MenaCalc scores as a new biomarker improves prognostication over that observed with TMEM doorway or MenaCalc Score alone in this cohort of 86 patients.