Safety and Efficacy of Necitumumab (N) During Single-Agent Treatment to Progression Following Gemcitabine-Cisplatin (GC) Chemotherapy Plus Necitumumab (IMC-11F8/LY3012211) in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With Stage IV Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (sq-NSCLC) (SQUIRE)
Mark A. SocinskiN. ThatcherAlexander LuftAleksandra SzczęsnaTudor‐Eliade CiuleanuW SzafrańskiRodryg RamlauBeatrix BálintAndrzej KażarnowiczOlivier MolinierH. DepenbrockShivani NandaColeman K. ObasajuLuis Paz‐Ares
0
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Keywords:
Clinical endpoint
Progression-free survival
The use of auxiliary endpoints may provide efficiencies for clinical trial design, but such endpoints may not have intrinsic clinical relevance or clear linkage to more meaningful endpoints. The purpose of this study was to generate a novel endpoint that considers both overall survival (OS) and earlier events such as progression-free survival (PFS) and determine whether such an endpoint could increase efficiency in the design of glioblastoma clinical trials.Recognizing that the association between PFS and OS varies depending on therapy and tumor type, we developed a statistical model to predict OS based on PFS as the trial progresses. We then evaluated the efficiency of our model using simulations of adaptively randomized trials incorporating PFS and OS distributions from prior published trials in neuro-oncology.When treatment effects on PFS and OS are concordant, our proposed approach results in efficiency gains compared with randomization based on OS alone while sacrificing minimal efficiency compared with using PFS as the primary endpoint. When treatment effects are limited to PFS, our approach provides randomization probabilities that are close to those based on OS alone.Use of OS as the primary endpoint, combined with statistical modeling of the relationship between OS and PFS during the course of the trial, results in more robust and efficient trial designs than using either endpoint alone.
Clinical endpoint
Progression-free survival
Endpoint Determination
Surrogate endpoint
Clinical study design
Cite
Citations (22)
Clinical endpoint
Cite
Citations (27)
Tolerability
Cite
Citations (44)
Clinical endpoint
Surrogate endpoint
Progression-free survival
Hematology
Clinical study design
Cite
Citations (25)
Regimen
Nucleoside analogue
Cite
Citations (1)
4072 Background: Pts with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) have limited response to current chemotherapy regimens and poor overall survival (OS). Nab-Paclitaxel (nabPAC) can increase the intra-cellular concentration of gemcitabine (GEM) through depletion of its metabolizing enzyme, cytidine deaminase (CDA). We investigated the nabPAC+GEM combination in a ph II single arm trial in advanced or metastatic CCA pts with exploratory biomarker evaluation, including CDA, hENT1, SPARC and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Methods: Key eligibility criteria: advanced or metastatic CCA with no prior systemic chemotherapy, age > 18, ECOG PS 0-1 and Child-Pugh < 8. Pts received nabPAC (125 mg/m2 IV) and GEM (1000 mg/m2 IV) days 1, 8 and 15 Q4 weeks until progression. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. Secondary endpoints: safety, time to progression (TTP), objective response (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR), median PFS and OS, as well as correlation of change in CA 19-9 to clinical efficacy. The study required > 43 of 67 evaluable patients alive and progression-free at 6 months to conclude the 6-month PFS rate is at least 70% against a null hypothesis of 55% based on historical data. Results: 73 eligible patients (41.1% male, 91.8% Caucasian, 45.2% ECOG PS 0) were enrolled across 22 sites with a median age of 62 (range 36-87) years and received a median of 6 (range 1-18) cycles. The primary endpoint of PFS rate at 6 months was 54.7% on intention to treat analysis. Response evaluation is underway and will be reported at the meeting. The median PFS and OS were 6.5 (95% CI, 5.1-7.7) and 10.3 (95% CI, 9.1-14.6) months, respectively. The safety profile of nabPAC+GEM was similar to that reported in ph III MPACT trial. The most common treatment-related G3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (24.3%), fatigue (13.5%) and anemia (12.2%). Five patients remain on the trial. Exploratory analyses are pending. Conclusions: The observed PFS rate at 6 months with nabPAC+GEM in CCA is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis of 55% PFS at 6 months, and appears to be as effective as the historical control. Clinical trial information: NCT02181634.
Clinical endpoint
Progression-free survival
Surrogate endpoint
Cite
Citations (0)
Drug repurposing is a promising strategy to develop new treatments for glioblastoma. In this phase II clinical trial, we evaluated the addition of chlorpromazine to temozolomide in the adjuvant phase of the standard first-line therapeutic protocol in patients with unmethylated
Clinical endpoint
Temozolomide
Progression-free survival
Cite
Citations (3)
Clinical endpoint
Cite
Citations (33)
Abstract Progression-free survival (PFS) is increasingly used as an important and even a primary endpoint in randomized cancer clinical trials in the evaluation of patients with solid tumors for both practical and clinical considerations. Although in its simplest form, PFS is the time from randomization to a predefined endpoint, there are many factors that can influence the exact moment of when disease progression is recorded. In this overview, we review the circumstances that can devalue the use of PFS as a primary endpoint and attempt to provide a pathway for a future desired state when PFS will become not just a secondary alternative to overall survival but rather an endpoint of choice. Clin Cancer Res; 19(10); 2607–12. ©2013 AACR.
Clinical endpoint
Progression-free survival
Endpoint Determination
Solid tumor
Surrogate endpoint
Tumor progression
Cite
Citations (74)
The main objective of this project was to estimate progression-free survival rates at different fixed time points in order to design future phase-II trials targeting the progression-free survival rate as primary endpoint in mesothelioma. Response rate has traditionally been used as an endpoint in many phase-II trials of oncology therapies. However, progression-free survival could be a more appropriate endpoint in rapidly progressing disease, at least in three situations: (1) when testing cytostatic agents, (2) when the response to a regimen is difficult to assess, (3) when the response is expected to be low. The use of progression-free survival as an endpoint instead of the response rate is relevant in mesothelioma for two primary reasons. Firstly, the global incidence of mesothelioma is increasing and current treatments yield disappointingly poor results. The development of more active treatments is thus highly desirable and new targeted therapies, including cytostatic agents, are currently the main focus of mesothelioma research. Secondly, in mesothelioma the assessment of response is difficult and not reproducible, and the response rate is usually low. In order to evaluate a novel therapy using progression-free survival rate as the primary endpoint, we need data about the progression of patients and especially about the progression-free survival rate at fixed time point. Data on 523 patients included in 10 mesothelioma trials conducted by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer were analysed. Values of progression-free survival rate at 3, 4, 5 and 6 months in groups of different levels of therapeutic activity and in different risk groups were calculated. Our work also provides a prognostic index which allows the definition of more homogeneous groups of patients that avoids dilution of results between groups. Based on these results, the size of future mesothelioma trials can be calculated and designs can be adapted to improve the assessment of the activity of a new therapy. Furthermore the use of progression-free survival rate rather than response rate as a primary endpoint would not require much more time to assess the endpoint. It would also decrease the probability to reject a potentially interesting therapy by considering non-progressive diseases as successes.
Clinical endpoint
Progression-free survival
Surrogate endpoint
Regimen
Cite
Citations (0)