scholarly journals Influence of an independent review committee on assessment of response rate and progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.A. Tang ◽  
G.R. Pond ◽  
E.X. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Review Committee ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Independent Review

Efficacy of Daratumumab Based Regimens Compared to Standard of Care for Transplant Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in Phase III Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Zahoor Ahmed ◽  
Karun Neupane ◽  
Rabia Ashraf ◽  
Amna Khan ◽  
Moazzam Shahzad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials

Introduction: Daratumumab (Dara) is a human anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. Dara has a promising efficacy and a favorable safety profile in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients. This study is focused on the efficacy and safety of Dara when added to the standard care regimen in transplant ineligible NDMM in phase III clinical trials. Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search on four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov). Our search strategy included MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and key words for multiple myeloma and Dara including trade names and generic names from date of inception to May 2020. Initial search revealed 587 articles. After excluding review articles, duplicates, and non-relevant articles, two phase III clinical trials were included which reported overall response rate (ORR), and progression free survival (PFS) of transplant ineligible NDMM patients with Dara addition to standard care regimen. Odds ratios (OR) of ORR were computed and hazard ratios (HR) of PFS (along with 95% confidence intervals; CI) were extracted to compute a pooled HR using a fixed effect model in RevMan v.5.4. Results: A total of 1453 transplant ineligible NDMM patients were enrolled and evaluated in two phase III randomized clinical trials. Seven hundred and eighteen patients were in Dara group and 735 patients were in control group. Bahlis et al. (2019) studied Dara + lenolidamide (R) and dexamethasone (d) vs Rd in NDMM pts (n=737) in MAIA phase III trial. Similarly, Mateos et al. (2018) reported the role of Dara + bortezomib (V) + melphalan (M), and prednisone (P) vs VMP in NDMM pts (n=706) in a phase III trial (Alcyone). A pooled analysis of these phase III trials showed ORR (OR: 3.26, 95% CI 2.36-4.49; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and progression free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.65; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status was significant in Dara based regimen as compared to control group (OR: 4.49, 95% CI 3.31-6.37; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Dara addition to standard care regimen (Rd and VMP) decreased the risk of progression/death to 42% (HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.70; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). The addition of Dara increased the risk of neutropenia (OR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.85; p < 0.02, I2 = 44%), and pneumonia (OR: 2.25, 95% CI 1.54-3.29; p < 0.0001, I2 = 37%) vs control group. However, decreased risk of anemia (OR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85: p < 0.002, I2=30%) was observed in Dara group vs control group (Figure 1). Conclusion: Addition of Dara to the standard care regimen for transplant ineligible NDMM achieved the surrogate end points with improved efficacy and MRD negative status with manageable toxicity. However, data from more randomized controlled trials is needed. Table Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Isatuximab plus carfilzomib/dexamethasone versus carfilzomib/dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: IKEMA Phase III study design

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 4347-4358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Meletios A Dimopoulos ◽  
Kwee Yong ◽  
Joseph Mikhael ◽  
Marie-Laure Risse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Review Committee ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
The Past ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Although the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma has improved dramatically over the past decade, the disease remains incurable; therefore, additional therapies are needed. Novel combination therapies incorporating monoclonal antibodies have shown significant promise. Here we describe the design of a Phase III study (NCT03275285, IKEMA), which is evaluating isatuximab plus carfilzomib and low-dose dexamethasone, versus carfilzomib/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The primary end point is progression-free survival. Responses are being determined by an independent review committee using 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, and safety will be assessed throughout. The first patient was recruited in November 2017, and the last patient was recruited in March 2019; 302 patients have been randomized, and the study is ongoing. Clinical trial registration: NCT03275285

Phase III Study of Intravenous Vinorelbine in Combination With Epirubicin Versus Epirubicin Alone in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Scandinavian Breast Group Trial (SBG9403)

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2313-2320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bent Ejlertsen ◽  
Henning T. Mouridsen ◽  
Sven T. Langkjer ◽  
Jorn Andersen ◽  
Johanna Sjöström ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response Rate ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether the addition of intravenous (IV) vinorelbine to epirubicin increased the progression-free survival in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 387 patients were randomly assigned to receive IV epirubicin 90 mg/m2 on day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, or epirubicin 90 mg/m2 IV on day 1. Both regimens were given every 3 weeks for a maximum of 1 year but discontinued prematurely in the event of progressive disease or severe toxicity. In addition, epirubicin was discontinued at a cumulative dose of 1,000 mg/m2 (950 mg/m2 from June 1999). Prior anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer was not allowed. Reported results were all based on intent-to-treat analyses. Results Overall response rates to vinorelbine and epirubicin, and epirubicin alone, were 50% and 42%, respectively (P = .15). The complete response rate was significantly superior in the combination arm (17% v 10%; P = .048) as was median duration of progression-free survival (10.1 months v 8.2 months; P = .019). Median survival was similar in the two arms (19.1 months v 18.0 months; P = .50). Leukopenia related complications, stomatitis, and peripheral neuropathy were more common in the combination arm. The incidences of cardiotoxicity and constipation were similar in both arms. Conclusion Addition of vinorelbine to epirubicin conferred a significant advantage in terms of complete response rate and progression-free survival, but not in terms of survival.

scholarly journals Blinded Independent Central Review of Progression-Free Survival in Phase III Clinical Trials: Important Design Element or Unnecessary Expense?

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3791-3796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Dodd ◽  
Edward L. Korn ◽  
Boris Freidlin ◽  
C. Carl Jaffe ◽  
Lawrence V. Rubinstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Informative Censoring ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
General Strategy ◽  
Design Element ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Using Data

Progression-free survival is an important end point in advanced disease settings. Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clinical trials has been advocated to control bias that might result from errors in progression assessments. However, although BICR lessens some potential biases, it does not remove all biases from evaluations of treatment effectiveness. In fact, as typically conducted, BICRs may introduce bias because of informative censoring, which results from having to censor unconfirmed locally determined progressions. In this article, we discuss the rationale for BICR and different ways of implementing independent review. We discuss the limitations of these approaches and review published trials that report implementing BICR. We demonstrate the existence of informative censoring using data from a randomized phase II trial. We conclude that double-blinded trials with consistent application of measurement criteria are the best means of ensuring unbiased trial results. When such designs are not practical, BICR is not recommended as a general strategy for reducing bias. However, BICR may be useful as an auditing tool to assess the reliability of marginally positive results.

An update on BREAK-3, a phase III, randomized trial: Dabrafenib (DAB) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAF V600E-positive mutation metastatic melanoma (MM).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9013-9013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Hauschild ◽  
Jean Jacques Grob ◽  
Lev V. Demidov ◽  
Thomas Jouary ◽  
Ralf Gutzmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

9013 Background: Dabrafenib is a selective BRAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in BRAF V600E-positive mutation in MM. The primary analysis of BREAK-3 (NCT01227889) compared progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-positive mutation MM treated with dabrafenib or DTIC. Methods: Median PFS for dabrafenib of 5.1 months (mo) and study methods were previously described (Hauschild A, et al. Lancet. 2012,380:358–365). Independent review ended at the primary analysis. PFS was updated in Jun 2012 at median follow-up of 10.5 mo for dabrafenib (67% of PFS events), and 9.9 mo for DTIC. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, so another analysis of OS and safety was performed with data as of Dec 2012, at which time the median follow-up was 15.2 (dabrafenib) and 12.7 (DTIC) mo. PFS of subjects who crossed over was also evaluated at that time. Results: PFS hazard ratio was 0.37 [95% CI; 0.23, 0.57]; median PFS was 6.9 mo dabrafenib and 2.7 mo DTIC. In Dec 2012, 36/63 DTIC pts crossed over; median PFS was 4.3 [95% CI; 4.1, 6.1] mos. OS is presented in the Table.The four most common adverse events (AE) on the dabrafenib arm were hyperkeratosis (39%), headache (35%), arthralgia (35%), and pyrexia (32%). Serious AEs ≥ 5% on the dabrafenib arm included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma/keratoacanthoma (10%) and pyrexia (5%). Conclusions: Longer follow-up confirms the benefits of dabrafenib on PFS and response rate. Median OS in the dabrafenib arm was over 18 mo and over 15 mo in the DTIC arm. OS results are confounded by crossover of DTIC pts to dabrafenib and likely by subsequent therapy after progression. The effects of subsequent therapy results will be investigated. The safety profile had no significant changes. Clinical trial information: NCT01227889. [Table: see text]

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus epirubicin as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a randomized, phase III trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1087-1087
Author(s):  
Zhongsheng Tong ◽  
Shufen Li ◽  
Yehui Shi ◽  
Xu Wang ◽  
Chen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference

1087 Background: Paclitaxel/carboplatin combinations are highly active in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We conducted a randomized, phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin (TP) with paclitaxel/epirubicin (TE) as first-line therapy for MBC. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL). Methods: From June 2009 to January 2015, 231 patients were randomly assigned, 115 of whom were randomized to TP and 116 to TE. Baseline characteristics were relatively well-balanced in the two treatments. Results: After a median follow-up of 29 months, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in objective response rate (ORR) (38.3% vs. 39.7%, respectively). Both the progression-free survival (p=0.158) and overall survival (p=0.369) were very similar between the two treatments. Both regimens were well tolerated. The main toxicities were myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reactions, and alopecia. TP showed higher grades 3–4 alopecia and higher nausea (p<0.05). TE showed higher incidence of myelosuppression than TP (p<0.05) (Table). Those patients whose epirubicin cumulative dose was more than 1000 mg/m2 did not suffer worse cardiotoxicity. Conclusions: Our study suggests that TP arm is an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with MBC, especially in those previously exposed to epirubicin in the adjuvant setting. TP has some advantages, such as less cost and less side effects (myelosuppression and fatigue). Clinical trial information: NCT02207361. [Table: see text]

Correlation between overall response rate and progression-free survival/overall survival in comparative trials involving targeted therapies in molecularly enriched populations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3588-3588
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Solomon ◽  
Herbert H. F. Loong ◽  
Yvonne J. Summers ◽  
Zachary M Thomas ◽  
Pearl Plernjit French ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Comparative Trials

3588 Background: Randomized trials involving agents targeting oncogene addicted tumors have greatly increased over the past decade. Whether clinical response rates can predict or correlate with efficacy measures such as progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) has not been established in molecularly enriched patient populations. In this meta-analysis, we investigated whether improvements in objective response rate (ORR) in comparative trials using targeted agents could serve as a potential surrogate endpoint for improvements in PFS or OS in populations with oncogene addicted cancer. Methods: CT.gov and MEDLINE databases were queried (using commercial text mining software I2E) for randomized, phase 3 clinical trials based on the following prospectively defined criteria: (1) use of agents targeting EGFR activating mutations (erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, osimertinib), ALK and ROS1 rearrangements (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib), BRAF V600E or V600K mutations (dabrafenib), and BCR-ABL fusion protein (imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, ponatinib); (2) must include molecularly enriched trial populations (biomarker subgroup data included if available); (3) control arms should not include targeted agents directed towards those molecularly enriched populations. ORR, OS, and PFS data were manually extracted from the relevant studies and correlative analyses (weighted Pearson correlation) were performed. Results: 61 trials were identified with 15 ultimately meeting the prespecified criteria. ORR effect size (both the ORR difference and log odds ratio) and the log PFS hazard ratio were strongly correlated (-0.78, p-value = 0.0007). No significant correlation was found between ORR and OS. Conclusions: In our analyses, a strong correlation between ORR and PFS was found in randomized clinical trials investigating agents targeting oncogene-driven cancers. Establishing a correlation between ORR and OS was limited, most probably due to confounding factors such as treatment cross-over following progression, number of subsequent therapies and long post-progression survival in this setting. These findings further warrant the use of ORR as a surrogate for PFS in biomarker-driven studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document