Clinical Equipoise for Trials of Novel Biologic Therapies, Therapeutic Success Rates, and Predictors of Success: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Doah Cho ◽  
Felicia T. Roncolato ◽  
Johnathan Man ◽  
John Simes ◽  
Sarah J. Lord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Predictors Of Success ◽  
Biologic Therapies ◽  
Therapeutic Success ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose The demand for more rapid access to novel biologic therapies than randomized controlled trials can deliver is a topic of ongoing study and debate. We aimed to inform this debate by estimating therapeutic success from phase III trials comparing novel biologic therapies with standard of care and identifying predictors of success. Methods This was a meta-analysis of phase III trials evaluating novel biologic therapies in advanced breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Therapeutic success was defined as statistically significant results for the primary end point favoring novel biologic therapies. Results Of 119 included phase III trials (76,726 patients), therapeutic success was 41%, with a statistically significant relative reduction in disease progression and death for novel biologic therapies over standard of care of 20% and 8%. Therapeutic success did not improve over time (pre-2010, 33%; 2010 to 2014, 44%; P = .2). Predictors of success were a biomarker-selected population (odds ratio, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.05 to 10.95) and progression-free survival end point compared with overall survival (odds ratio, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.41 to 11.39). Phase III trials with a biomarker-selected population showed a larger 28% progression-free survival benefit than phase III trials overall (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) but similar 8% overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94). Therapeutic success of phase III trials with and without a preceding phase II trial were 43% and 30%, respectively Conclusion Therapeutic success of novel biologic therapies in phase III trials, including therapies with a matching predictive biomarker, was modest and has not significantly improved over time. Equipoise remains and supports the ongoing ethical and scientific requirement for phase III randomized controlled trials to estimate treatment efficacy and assess the value of potential biomarkers.

scholarly journals P14.15 Benefit of Bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma. Results of 81 patients from a single institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii69-iii69
Author(s):  
O Absalyamova ◽  
G Kobiakov ◽  
G Agabekyan ◽  
A Poddubsky ◽  
A Belyashova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rapid Progression ◽  
Concomitant Disease ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Continuous Application

Abstract BACKGROUND No standard of care has been established for patients with progressive glioblastoma (rGBM). Previous studies suggested that bevacizumab (BEV) is safe and produces responses that result in a decreased use of glucocorticoids and increased progression-free survival (PFS) with an unclear effect on overall survival (OS). Crossover to BEV in the control arm is the possible reason why the advantage of BEV has not been proven in Phase III trials. We retrospectively analyzed own results of BEV treatment in rGBM. MATERIAL AND METHODS 81 patients progressed after radiotherapy plus concomitant and maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) and undergo BEV as monotherapy (BevMo, 11 patients) or in combinations (Irinotecan (BevI) - 53, lomustine (BevL)- 11, TMZ (BevT) - 6. Median age 54 years. Among them 33 patients were re-irradiated: 11 - radiosurgery (RS), 20 fractionated irradiation (RT), 2 - RS+RT. 33 patients continued BEV after progression with changing or adding cytostatic. PFS was calculated from the date of verification, PFS1 - from the date of 1-st progression, PFS2 - from the date of 2-nd progression. RESULTS Median PFS was 9.0 ([CI] 7.0–10.9) months. Median PFS1 was 10.5 ([CI] 8.1–12.9) months. In the BevMo, BevI, BevL, BevT group PFS1 was 15.7, 10.1, 10.5, 13.2 months, respectively, p=0.7. Objective response (OR) was reached in 34%, stable disease (SD) in 28%, progression (PD) in 37% patients. 16 patients stopped BEV without progression (4-patient`s decision, 7- doctor`s decision, 2 - adverse event, 3 - concomitant disease). Median time of BEV treatment was 11.6 months. Median BEV-free interval till progression was 3.7 months. 33 patients continued or restarted BEV after progression. Median PFS2 was 8.0 ([CI] 4.9–11.1) months. The median OS from the date of 1-st progression was 23.5 months ([CI] 18.7–27.4). In groups with RT, RS, RS+RT and no re-irradiarion OS was 24.6 ([CI] 17.6–31.5), 35.4 ([CI] 35.0–35.8), 17.8, 20.6 ([CI] 15.2–26.0), respectively, p=0.2. CONCLUSION OS in our group is outrageously high. Maintaining BEV after progression was effective. In our group BEV discontinuation led to rapid progression. The resumption of Bev with progression was effective, which indicates the advisability of its continuous application.

scholarly journals Characterizing benefit from temozolomide in MGMT promoter unmethylated and methylated glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iyad Alnahhas ◽  
Mouaz Alsawas ◽  
Appaji Rayi ◽  
Joshua D Palmer ◽  
Raju Raval ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Mgmt Promoter ◽  
Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

Abstract Background The current standard of care for the management of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) includes maximal safe resection followed by radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). While it is well established that TMZ has better efficacy in patients with MGMT promoter methylation, it remains an area of debate whether TMZ should be omitted when treating GBM patients with unmethylated MGMT. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with methylated and unmethylated GBM treated with RT with or without TMZ. We searched multiple databases from inception to January 13, 2020. Results The median OS for patients with unmethylated GBM treated with RT/TMZ pooled from 5 phase III studies (N = 655) was 14.11 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.18–15.04) with a median PFS of 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.25–5.72). In contrast, the median OS for patients with methylated GBM pooled from 6 studies (N = 753) was 24.59 months (95% CI, 22.19–26.99) with a median PFS pooled from 7 studies (N = 805) of 9.51 months (95% CI, 7.41–11.61). There is a paucity of prospective data pertaining to OS/PFS in unmethylated patients treated with RT only and therefore a direct comparison was not possible. Conclusions This meta-analysis provides estimates of survival for patients with MGMT methylated or unmethylated GBM treated with RT/TMZ. Further research is needed to delineate whether TMZ should be withheld for patients with unmethylated GBM outside of the setting of clinical trials.

scholarly journals Current FDA-Approved Therapies for High-Grade Malignant Gliomas

Biomedicines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 324
Author(s):  
Jacob P. Fisher ◽  
David C. Adamson
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Malignant Gliomas ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Tumor Treatment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
One Year

The standard of care (SOC) for high-grade gliomas (HGG) is maximally safe surgical resection, followed by concurrent radiation therapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) for 6 weeks, then adjuvant TMZ for 6 months. Before this SOC was established, glioblastoma (GBM) patients typically lived for less than one year after diagnosis, and no adjuvant chemotherapy had demonstrated significant survival benefits compared with radiation alone. In 2005, the Stupp et al. randomized controlled trial (RCT) on newly diagnosed GBM patients concluded that RT plus TMZ compared to RT alone significantly improved overall survival (OS) (14.6 vs. 12.1 months) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (PFS6) (53.9% vs. 36.4%). Outside of TMZ, there are four drugs and one device FDA-approved for the treatment of HGGs: lomustine, intravenous carmustine, carmustine wafer implants, bevacizumab (BVZ), and tumor treatment fields (TTFields). These treatments are now mainly used to treat recurrent HGGs and symptoms. TTFields is the only treatment that has been shown to improve OS (20.5 vs. 15.6 months) and PFS6 (56% vs. 37%) in comparison to the current SOC. TTFields is the newest addition to this list of FDA-approved treatments, but has not been universally accepted yet as part of SOC.

scholarly journals Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib for Patients with Advanced Melanoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Antonio M Grimaldi ◽  
Ester Simeone ◽  
Lucia Festino ◽  
Vito Vanella ◽  
Paolo A Ascierto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mapk Pathway ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Acquired Resistance ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Mek Inhibition ◽  
Braf Mutant

Acquired resistance is the most common cause of BRAF inhibitor monotherapy treatment failure, with the majority of patients experiencing disease progression with a median progression-free survival of 6-8 months. As such, there has been considerable focus on combined therapy with dual BRAF and MEK inhibition as a means to improve outcomes compared with monotherapy. In the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials, combined dabrafenib and trametinib was associated with significant improvements in outcomes compared with dabrafenib or vemurafenib monotherapy, in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib has also been investigated. In the phase III CoBRIM study in patients with unresectable stage III-IV BRAF-mutant melanoma, treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib alone. One-year OS was 74.5% in the vemurafenib and cobimetinib group and 63.8% in the vemurafenib group, while 2-year OS rates were 48.3% and 38.0%, respectively. The combination was also well tolerated, with a lower incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma compared with monotherapy. Dual inhibition of both MEK and BRAF appears to provide a more potent and durable anti-tumour effect than BRAF monotherapy, helping to prevent acquired resistance as well as decreasing adverse events related to BRAF inhibitor-induced activation of the MAPK-pathway. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is the standard of care in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma.

scholarly journals Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Cetuximab Radiotherapy Is Not Superior to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Head and Neck Carcinomas: Results of the GORTEC 2007-02 Phase III Randomized Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (31) ◽  
pp. 3077-3083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionnel Geoffrois ◽  
Laurent Martin ◽  
Dominique De Raucourt ◽  
Xu Shan Sun ◽  
Yungan Tao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose Both concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) and cetuximab radiotherapy (cetux-RT) have been established as the standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. It was not known whether the addition of induction chemotherapy before cetux-RT could improve outcomes compared with standard of care CT-RT. Patients and Methods The current trial was restricted to patients with nonmetastatic N2b, N2c, or N3 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and fit for taxotere, cisplatin, fluorouracil (TPF). Patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF followed by cetux-RT versus concurrent carboplatin fluorouracil and RT as recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The trial was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 in favor of TPF plus cetux-RT for progression-free survival at 2 years. The inclusion of 180 patients per arm was needed to achieve 80% power at a two-sided significance level of .05. Results Between 2009 and 2013, 370 patients were included. All patients and tumors characteristics were well balanced between arms. There were more cases of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in the induction arm, and the induction TPF was associated with 6.6% treatment-related deaths. With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 2-year progression-free survival was not different between both arms (CT-RT, 0.38 v TPF + cetux-RT, 0.36; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.20]; P = .58). HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.3; P = .90) for locoregional control and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.46; P = .39) for overall survival. These effects were observed regardless of p16 status. The rate of distant metastases was lower in the TPF arm (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99]; P = .05). Conclusion Induction TPF followed by cetux-RT did not improve outcomes compared with CT-RT in a population of patients with advanced cervical lymphadenopathy.

scholarly journals Rituximab-CHOP With Early Rituximab Intensification for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Randomized Phase III Trial of the HOVON and the Nordic Lymphoma Group (HOVON-84)

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29) ◽  
pp. 3377-3387
Author(s):  
Pieternella Johanna Lugtenburg ◽  
Peter de Nully Brown ◽  
Bronno van der Holt ◽  
Francesco A. D’Amore ◽  
Harry R. Koene ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Large B Cell

PURPOSE Immunochemotherapy with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has become standard of care for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This randomized trial assessed whether rituximab intensification during the first 4 cycles of R-CHOP could improve the outcome of these patients compared with standard R-CHOP. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 574 patients with DLBCL age 18 to 80 years were randomly assigned to induction therapy with 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP-14 with (RR-CHOP-14) or without (R-CHOP-14) intensification of rituximab in the first 4 cycles. The primary end point was complete remission (CR) on induction. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. RESULTS CR was achieved in 254 (89%) of 286 patients in the R-CHOP-14 arm and 249 (86%) of 288 patients in the RR-CHOP-14 arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.36; P = .44). After a median follow-up of 92 months (range, 1-131 months), 3-year failure-free survival was 74% (95% CI, 68% to 78%) in the R-CHOP-14 arm versus 69% (95% CI, 63% to 74%) in the RR-CHOP-14 arm (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.61; P = .07). Progression-free survival at 3 years was 74% (95% CI, 69% to 79%) in the R-CHOP-14 arm versus 71% (95% CI, 66% to 76%) in the RR-CHOP-14 arm (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.55; P = .15). Overall survival at 3 years was 81% (95% CI, 76% to 85%) in the R-CHOP-14 arm versus 76% (95% CI, 70% to 80%) in the RR-CHOP-14 arm (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.67; P = .09). Patients between ages 66 and 80 years experienced significantly more toxicity during the first 4 cycles in the RR-CHOP-14 arm, especially neutropenia and infections. CONCLUSION Early rituximab intensification during R-CHOP-14 does not improve outcome in patients with untreated DLBCL.

scholarly journals Cisplatin-Based First-Line Treatment of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Joint Analysis of MILES-3 and MILES-4 Phase III Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (25) ◽  
pp. 2585-2592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Gridelli ◽  
Alessandro Morabito ◽  
Luigi Cavanna ◽  
Andrea Luciani ◽  
Paolo Maione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Health Status Score

Purpose To test the efficacy of adding cisplatin to first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within a combined analysis of two parallel phase III trials, MILES-3 and MILES-4. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than age 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed, without or with cisplatin. In each trial, 382 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of death of 0.75, with 80% power and two-tailed α of .05. Trials were closed prematurely because of slow accrual, but the joint database allowed us to analyze the efficacy of cisplatin on the basis of intention-to-treat and adjusted by trial, histotype, non-platinum companion drug, stage, performance status, sex, age, and size of the study center. Results From March 2011 to August 2016, 531 patients (MILES-3, 299; MILES-4, 232) were assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed without (n = 268) or with cisplatin (n = 263). Median age was 75 years, 79% were male, and 70% had nonsquamous histology. At a median 2-year follow-up, 384 deaths and 448 progression-free survival events were recorded. Overall survival was not significantly prolonged with cisplatin (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P = .14) and global health status score of quality of life was not improved, whereas progression-free survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92; P = .005) and objective response rate (15.5% v 8.5%; P = .02) were significantly better. Significantly more severe hematologic toxicity, fatigue, and anorexia were found with cisplatin. Conclusion The addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy does not significantly prolong overall survival, and it does not improve global health status score of quality of life in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document