Objective response rate and progression-free survival as surrogate endpoints for overall survival and the impact of crossover and unbalanced post-progression treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis in first-line therapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9049-9049
Author(s):  
Boris Pfeiffer ◽  
Mahmoud Hashim ◽  
Monica Duran ◽  
Maarten Postma ◽  
Bart Heeg
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

9049 Background: Correlations between overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS) are poor. We aimed to evaluate the impact of crossover and unbalanced subsequent treatments on ORR and PFS as surrogate endpoints for OS in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line therapy. Methods: A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials of systemic treatment for patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC receiving first-line therapy was performed. Weighted (by trial size) linear regression models were fitted with the absolute difference in ORR or median PFS as an independent variable and the absolute difference in median OS as a dependent variable. The analysis was repeated in predefined subsets based on crossover and balance of post-progression therapies. Surrogate threshold effect (STE) was estimated using prediction intervals. Results: 317 trials (78,644 patients) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In all treatment arms, the mean ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 28.2% (standard deviation (SD) = 12.4%), 5.1 months (SD = 2.1), and 10.4 months (SD = 2.5), respectively. ORR and PFS had weak (R = 0.351; 95% CI: 0.251-0.443) and (R = 0.397; 95% CI: 0.267-0.512) associations with OS, respectively. However, within phase III trials that did not allow crossover and reported balanced post-progression treatments, both ORR and PFS had stronger associations with OS (ORR and OS: R = 0.601, 95% CI: 0.399-0.747; PFS and OS: R = 0.695, 95% CI: 0.446-0.844). STE estimation indicated that trials that show statistically significant treatment effect size of ≥43% ORR or ≥3.2 median PFS months can be expected to show significant OS benefit with sufficient certainty. Conclusions: Surrogacy of ORR and PFS for OS might be better estimated in trials that do not allow crossover and report balanced post-progression treatments. Presented STE calculation can be used to estimate the expected effect on OS when either ORR or PFS are used as primary endpoints.

Objective response rate and progression-free survival as surrogate endpoints for overall survival and the impact of crossover and unbalanced post-progression treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis in second- and further-line therapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20609-e20609
Author(s):  
Boris Pfeiffer ◽  
Mahmoud Hashim ◽  
Robert Bartsch ◽  
Maarten Postma ◽  
Bart Heeg
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

e20609 Background: Correlations between overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS) are poor. We aimed to evaluate the impact of crossover and unbalanced subsequent treatments on ORR and PFS as surrogate endpoints for OS in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving second- and further-line therapy. Methods: A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials of systemic treatment for patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC receiving second- and further-line therapy was performed. Weighted (by trial size) linear regression models were fitted with the absolute difference in ORR or median PFS as an independent variable and the absolute difference in median OS as a dependent variable. The analysis was repeated in predefined subsets based on crossover and balance of post-progression therapies. Surrogate threshold effect (STE) was estimated using prediction intervals. Results: 146 trials (43,061 patients) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In all treatment arms, the mean ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 12.2% (standard deviation [SD] 11.2%), 3.2 months (SD 1.3), and 9.6 months (SD 4.1), respectively. ORR and PFS had very weak (R = 0.181; 95% CI: 0.016-0.337) and weak (R = 0.254; 95% CI: 0.074-0.418) relationships, respectively, with OS. However, within trials that did not allow crossover and reported balanced post-progression treatments, ORR and PFS had moderate (R = 0.528; 95% CI: 0.081-0.798) and strong (R = 0.778; 95% CI: 0.475-0.916) relationships, respectively, with OS. STE estimation indicated that trials that show statistically significant treatment effect size of ≥41.0% ORR or ≥4.15 median PFS months can be expected to show significant OS benefit with sufficient certainty. Conclusions: Surrogacy of ORR and PFS for OS might be better estimated in trials that do not allow crossover and report balanced post-progression treatments. Presented STE calculation can be used to estimate the expected effect on OS when either ORR or PFS are used as primary endpoints.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis for K-Ras status–based decisions for first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 438-438
Author(s):  
Cristobal Belda
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ras Status

438 Background: Personalized medicine is a challenge for current oncology practice. Nowadays there are no pharmacoeconomic analyses in Spain dealing with the clinical and financial impact secondary to K-Ras based decisions for first-line therapy in mCRC patients. So, this study was aimed to assess the cost- effectiveness of K-Ras status based decisions in first- line therapy of mCRC patients in comparison with non- K-Ras based selection of available therapies. Methods: K-Ras mutation prevalence and efficacy of available therapies (measured as response rate and progression free survival) were extracted from randomized clinical trials (RCT) that allowed on-label use of accessible drugs in Spain. Then, we have simulated all possibilities of combination therapies for first-line mCRC based on K-Ras status (wild- type vs mutated) and confronted with all therapies that could be chosen in absence of K-Ras analysis. Prices for all drugs in Spain were used to assume the best- value for each drug including all possibilities to reduce pharmacy costs. For first line, median duration of therapy reported by RCT was used to calculate the final budget. 70 kg and 1.7 m were used as reference for patients dose calculations. Results: First-line therapy that includes a biological drug in absence of K-Ras status based decisions implies an incremental cost per 1% of increased response rate of 1,237 euros for irinotecan based doublets and 3,193 euros for oxaliplatin based doublets. On the opposite, K-Ras based decisions reduce costs per objective response by 69% and 35% for irinotecan and oxaliplatin- based schedules in K-Ras wild-type population incorporating cetuximab as biological agent. These data mimic all calculi based on incremental costs secondary to improved progression free survival measured as HR when all scenarios without prior determination of K-Ras status were confronted with K-Ras based decisions. Conclusions: K-Ras based decisions reduces costs per objective response as well as per improved progression free survival. The most cost- effective scenario among all simulated was cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for patients that harbor wt K-Ras mCRC.

Prognostic value of incidental betablockers use in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line treatment.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14610-e14610
Author(s):  
Michela Del Prete ◽  
Riccardo Giampieri ◽  
Mario Scartozzi ◽  
Elena Maccaroni ◽  
Luca Faloppi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients

e14610 Background: Preclinical and retrospective studies suggested antitumor activity for the incidental use of betablockers in various tumour types. Data regarding colorectal cancer are lacking. We assessed the correlation between the incidental use of betablockers and clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line therapy. Methods: 235 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy alone (128 patients) and with Bevacizumab (107 patients) were analysed. Patients were stratified for betablockers use, age, sex, site of metastases, previous adjuvant chemotherapy and ECOG performance status. Results: 29 patients (12%) were on treatment with betablockers at the time of first-line therapy: 20 (16%) in the chemotherapy alone group and 9 in the bevacizumab group (8%). In both groups patients receiving or not betablockers were similar for all main clinical characteristics. In the chemotherapy alone group, patients receiving betablockers showed an improved response rate (60% vs. 33%, p=0.044) and overall survival (mOS 41.3 vs 25.7 months, p=0.03, HR:2.26, 95% CI: 1.05-3.24). Only a trend for improved progression free survival was noticed. In the 107 patients receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab a trend towards a worse overall survival was seen for patients receiving betablockers, although this was not statistically significant (mOS 16 vs 23.7 months, p=0.26, HR:0.64, 95% CI: 0.22-1.49). No significant differences were seen in regards of progression free survival or different response rate patterns between the two groups. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms a potential prognostic role for the use of betablockers in colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Our findings are in line with preclinical studies suggesting that beta-adrenergic signalling may regulate cancerogenesis and tumor invasiveness. Our analysis suggests a potential worse outcome for patients on betablockers receiving Bevacizumab-based treatment, although the small number of patients precludes any definitive conclusion. We suggest that in future prospective trials the incidental use of betablockers will be considered a stratification factor for clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Apatinib in Patients with Recurrent or Refractory Melanoma

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shumin Yuan ◽  
Qiang Fu ◽  
Yingkun Ren ◽  
Zhimeng Li ◽  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Angiogenesis Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background: Prognosis of patients with metastatic malignant melanoma is very poor and partly due to high resistance to conventional chemotherapies. The study’s objectives were to assess the activity and tolerability of apatinib, an oral small molecule anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with recurrent advanced melanoma.Methods: This was a single-arm, single-center phase II trial. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Eligible patients received at least one first-line therapy for advanced melanoma and experienced recurrence. Apatinib (500 mg) was orally administered daily. Trail registration: Clinical Trials, ID: NCT03383237. Registered on 24 December 2017. URL of trail registry record: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov. Results: Fifteen patients were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 4.0 months. There were two major objective responses, for a 13.33% response rate. Eleven patients had stable disease, with a DCR of 86.67%.The median OS was 12.0 months. The most common clinically significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities included hypertension and canker sore. No treatment-related deaths occurred.Conclusions: Apatinib showed antitumor activity as a second or first-line therapy in patients with malignant melanoma. The toxicity was manageable.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of apatinib in patients with recurrent or refractory melanoma

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shumin Yuan ◽  
Qiang Fu ◽  
Yingkun Ren ◽  
Zhimeng Li ◽  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Angiogenesis Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background Prognosis of patients with metastatic malignant melanoma is very poor and partly due to high resistance to conventional chemotherapies. The study’s objectives were to assess the activity and tolerability of apatinib, an oral small molecule anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with recurrent advanced melanoma. Methods This was a single-arm, single-center phase II trial. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Eligible patients received at least one first-line therapy for advanced melanoma and experienced recurrence. Apatinib (500 mg) was orally administered daily. Trail registration: Clinical Trials, ID: NCT03383237. Registered on 24 December 2017. URL of trail registry record: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov. Results Fifteen patients were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 4.0 months. There were two major objective responses, for a 13.33% response rate. Eleven patients had stable disease, with a DCR of 86.67%.The median OS was 12.0 months. The most common clinically significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities included hypertension and canker sore. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions Apatinib showed antitumor activity as a second or first-line therapy in patients with malignant melanoma. The toxicity was manageable.

scholarly journals The benefits and risks of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm meta-analysis of noncomparative clinical studies and randomized control trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiangyun Liu ◽  
Yixuan Zhang ◽  
Miaowen Liu ◽  
Ruoxin Xu ◽  
Fengming Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Conventional Chemotherapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background Although pembrolizumab has shown clinical benefit in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), its actual efficacy in combination with a conventional chemotherapy drug has not been determined. We performed this study to discern the efficacy and risk of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in SCLC patients. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for relevant studies. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results We identified 2980 articles and included 6 studies (5 were noncomparative open-label studies and 1 was a randomized controlled trial [RCT]) involving 396 patients in our meta-analysis. The pooled median OS (mOS) was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.0-11.2), and the pooled median PFS (mPFS) was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.2-6.1). The 1-year overall survival rate (OSR-1y) and 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR-6m) were 45.1% (95% CI, 33-57.2%) and 41.6% (95% CI, 24.3-59%), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 38.8% (95% CI, 11.9-65.67%), disease control rate (DCR) was 69.30% (95% CI, 51.6-87.0%), complete response (CR) was 2.20% (95% CI, 0.8-3.7%), partial response (PR) was 34.70% (95% CI, 7.8-61.5%), and stable disease (SD) was 20.90% (95% CI, 9.1-32.6%). The grade 3-4 adverse effect (AE) rate was 20.88% (95% CI, 1.22-54.85%). The most common AEs were neutropenia (90.16%), anemia (53.21%), dysphagia (41.96%), platelet count decrease (34.87%), and esophagitis (32.89%); severe AEs included neutropenia, respiratory failure, pneumonitis, acute coronary syndrome, and colitis/intestinal ischemia. Conclusions The combination of pembrolizumab with conventional chemotherapy is an effective therapeutic schedule with acceptable and manageable efficacy and toxicity in patients with SCLC. More high-quality and well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are warranted to further validate our findings.

scholarly journals The Efficacy of Ramucirumab in the Treatment of Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Hongqiong Yang ◽  
Yaojun Zhou ◽  
Liangzhi Wang ◽  
Tianyi Gu ◽  
Mengjia Lv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Five electronic databases were searched for eligible records. Outcomes were presented and analyzed according to the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) rate, and overall survival (OS) rate. Five records involving 2,024 participants were included in the study. The pooled analysis of OS and PFS were longer with ramucirumab (RAM) therapy than without RAM for OS (odds ratio OR = 0.90 , 95% confidence interval CI = 0.82 – 1.00 , p = 0.05 ) and PFS ( OR = 0.74 , 95 % CI = 0.57 – 0.96 , p = 0.02 ). Moreover, compared with the current first-line chemotherapy, the OS ( OR = 0.93 , 95 % CI = 0.83 – 1.04 , p = 0.19 ) and PFS ( OR = 0.82 , 95 % CI = 0.64 – 1.06 , p = 0.13 ) results were not significantly higher with RAM. The ORRs of the patients in the RAM therapy groups were significantly higher than those in the groups without RAM ( OR = 1.40 , 95 % CI = 1.14 – 1.73 , p = 0.001 ).

Prognostic impact of prior local therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikifumi Koura ◽  
Masaki Shiota ◽  
Shohei Ueda ◽  
Takashi Matsumoto ◽  
Satoshi Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Objective This study aimed to reveal the prognostic values of prior local therapy in first-line therapy using androgen receptor-axis targeting agents (abiraterone or enzalutamide) or docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods The study included 303 patients treated with first-line therapy for non-metastatic and metastatic CRPC. The association between prior local therapy and therapeutic outcome including progression-free survival and overall survival was investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses as well as propensity score-matched analysis. Results In univariate analysis, local prior therapy was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.56, 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.79; P = 0.0009). Overall survival, but not progression-free survival, was better among patients with prior local therapy compared with patients without prior local therapy even after multivariate analysis and propensity score-matched analysis. Conclusions This study robustly indicated that prior local treatment was prognostic for overall survival among patients with CRPC. This finding is useful to predict patient prognosis in CRPC.

Effects of adding necitumumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1331-1342
Author(s):  
Irena Ilic ◽  
Sandra Sipetic ◽  
Jovan Grujicic ◽  
Milena Ilic
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival

Introduction Almost half of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Our aim was to assess the effects of adding necitumumab to chemotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Material and methods A comprehensive literature search was performed according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate and adverse events were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data and pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Results The meta-analysis included four randomized clinical trials with 2074 patients. The pooled results showed significant improvement for overall survival (HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.95), p = 0.004) when necitumumab was added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No statistically significant improvement was noted for progression-free survival and objective response rate (HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–1.01), p = 0.06 and OR = 1.46 (95% CI 0.90–2.38), p = 0.13, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no benefit in overall survival and objective response rate. Patients with advanced NSCLC who received necitumumab were at the highest odds of developing a skin rash (OR = 14.50 (95% CI 3.16–66.43), p = 0.0006) and hypomagnesaemia (OR = 2.77 (95% CI 2.23–3.45), p < 0.00001), while the OR for any grade ≥3 adverse event was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28–1.87, p < 0.00001). Conclusions The addition of necitumumab to standard chemotherapy in a first-line setting in patients with stage IV NSCLC results in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, while the results were not significant for progression-free survival and objective response rate.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document