Validation of Progression-Free Survival Rate at 6 Months and Objective Response for Estimating Overall Survival in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Peey-Sei Kok, Doah Cho, Won-Hee Yoon, Georgia Ritchie, Ian Marschner, Sally Lord, Michael Friedlander, John Simes, Chee Khoon Lee, Peey-Sei Kok, Doah Cho, Won-Hee Yoon, Georgia Ritchie, Ian Marschner, Sally Lord, Michael Friedlander, John Simes, Chee Khoon Lee

Abstract

Importance: Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months has been proposed as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) rate at 12 months for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials but requires further assessment for validation.

Objective: To validate 6-month PFS and objective response rate (ORR) as estimators of 12-month OS in the ICI arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Data sources: Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for ICI RCTs published between January 2000 and June 2019.

Study selection: Eligible studies were phase 2 and phase 3 ICI RCTs in advanced solid cancers that reported ORR, PFS, and OS. A total of 99 articles (from 60 studies) of 2502 articles were selected by consensus.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were screened and extracted independently. Estimation models for 12-month OS and to assess correlation coefficient between end points were developed using linear regression. Data were extracted in July 2019, and analyses were conducted in September 2019. This study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main outcomes and measures: Validation of previously reported 6-month PFS and ORR estimation models for 12-month OS using contemporary RCTs. Calibration of 6-month PFS and ORR model-estimated vs observed 12-month OS in ICI arms were assessed by correlation coefficient (r) and weighted Brier scores. Secondary analyses were performed for subgroups (ie, ICI-only, ICI-combination, line of therapy, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 selected, and unselected).

Results: Data from 60 RCTs with 74 experimental ICI arms were used. The development data set included 25 arms from studies published January 2000 to January 2017. The estimation model for 12-month OS using 6-month PFS was: (1.06 × PFS6) + 0.16 + (0.04 × melanoma) - (0.03 × NSCLC) + (0 × other tumors), in which PFS6 indicates 6-month PFS and NSCLC indicates non-small cell lung cancer. The estimation model for 12-month OS using ORR was (0.15 × ORR) + 0.52 + (0 × melanoma) - (0.02 × NSCLC) - (0.01 × other tumors). A total of 49 arms from studies published after January 2017 to June 2019 formed the validation data set. When the models were applied on the validation data set, calibration between the 6-month PFS model estimated vs observed 12-month OS was good (r = 0.89; Brier score, 0.008), but poor for the ORR model (r = 0.47; Brier score, 0.03). Findings were similar across all subgroups.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the estimation model using 6-month PFS could reliably estimate 12-month OS in ICI trials. This study could assist in better selection and prioritization of ICI agents for testing in RCTs based on phase 2 single-arm RCT results.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Friedlander reported receiving grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Novartis, MSD, Lilly, Takeda, and Act Genomics outside the submitted work. Dr Simes reported receiving grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) during the conduct of the study. Dr Lee reported receiving grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Amgen, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Study Selection Flowchart
Figure 1.. Study Selection Flowchart
Figure 2.. Estimated vs Observed 12-Month Overall…
Figure 2.. Estimated vs Observed 12-Month Overall Survival (OS) Rate
Each circle indicates a study from the validation data set; circle sizes, sample size of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) arm of the study.
Figure 3.. Correlation Between 6-Month Progression-Free Survival…
Figure 3.. Correlation Between 6-Month Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Objective Response Rate (ORR), and 12-month Overall Survival (OS) in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Arms
Circle sizes indicate sample size of ICI arm of the study.
Figure 4.. Correlation Among Treatment Effects in…
Figure 4.. Correlation Among Treatment Effects in ICI RCTs
HR indicates hazard ratio; circle sizes, total sample size of each randomized clinical trial; PFS, progression-free survival; ORR, objective response rate; and OS, overall survival.

References

    1. Tang J, Yu JX, Hubbard-Lucey VM, Neftelinov ST, Hodge JP, Lin Y. Trial watch: the clinical trial landscape for PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(12):854-855. doi:10.1038/nrd.2018.210
    1. Van Norman GA. Drugs, devices, and the FDA: part 1: an overview of approval processes for drugs. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1(3):170-179. doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.03.002
    1. Bartsch R, Frings S, Marty M, et al. ; Biotherapy Development Association (BDA) . Present and future breast cancer management—bench to bedside and back: a positioning paper of academia, regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industry. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(4):773-780. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt531
    1. D’Angelo SP, Russell J, Lebbé C, et al. . Efficacy and safety of first-line avelumab treatment in patients with stage IV metastatic merkel cell carcinoma: a preplanned interim analysis of a clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(9):e180077. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0077
    1. Baranzini SE, Madireddy LR, Cromer A, et al. . Prognostic biomarkers of IFNb therapy in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 2015;21(7):894-904. doi:10.1177/1352458514555786
    1. Barateau L, Dauvilliers Y. Recent advances in treatment for narcolepsy. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019;12:1756286419875622. doi:10.1177/1756286419875622
    1. Marcus L, Lemery SJ, Keegan P, Pazdur R. FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of microsatellite instability-high solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(13):3753-3758. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4070
    1. Prasad V, Kim C, Burotto M, Vandross A. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389-1398. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829
    1. Chen EY, Raghunathan V, Prasad V. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):915-921. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0583
    1. Liang F, Wu Z, Mo M, et al. . Comparison of treatment effect from randomised controlled phase II trials and subsequent phase III trials using identical regimens in the same treatment setting. Eur J Cancer. 2019;121:19-28. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.006
    1. Michiels S, Wason J. Overestimated treatment effects in randomised phase II trials: What’s up doctor? Eur J Cancer. 2019;123:116-117. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.09.023
    1. Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. A comparison of response patterns for progression-free survival and overall survival following treatment for cancer with PD-1 inhibitors: a meta-analysis of correlation and differences in effect sizes. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(2):e180416. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0416
    1. Tan A, Porcher R, Crequit P, Ravaud P, Dechartres A. Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: a meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at . J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1686-1694. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.2109
    1. Ritchie G, Gasper H, Man J, et al. . Defining the most appropriate primary end point in phase 2 trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(4):522-528. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5236
    1. Graf E, Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Stat Med. 1999;18(17-18):2529-2545. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2529::AID-SIM274>;2-5
    1. Mushti SL, Mulkey F, Sridhara R. Evaluation of overall response rate and progression-free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in immunotherapy trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(10):2268-2275. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1902
    1. Nie RC, Chen FP, Yuan SQ, et al. . Evaluation of objective response, disease control and progression-free survival as surrogate end-points for overall survival in anti-programmed death-1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 trials. Eur J Cancer. 2019;106:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.10.011
    1. Wang Z-X, Wu H-X, Xie L, et al. . Correlation of milestone restricted mean survival time ratio with overall survival hazard ratio in randomized clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e193433-e193433. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3433
    1. Park SE, Lee SH, Ahn JS, Ahn MJ, Park K, Sun JM. Increased response rates to salvage chemotherapy administered after PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(1):106-111. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.011
    1. Szabados B, van Dijk N, Tang YZ, et al. . Response rate to chemotherapy after immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic urothelial cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):149-152. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.022
    1. Schvartsman G, Peng SA, Bis G, et al. . Response rates to single-agent chemotherapy after exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2017;112:90-95. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.07.034
    1. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, et al. . Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(23):7412-7420. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1624
    1. Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, et al. ; RECIST working group . iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):e143-e152. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30074-8
    1. Borcoman E, Nandikolla A, Long G, Goel S, Le Tourneau C. Patterns of response and progression to immunotherapy. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38(38):169-178. doi:10.1200/EDBK_200643

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir