Risk Reduction In Progression-free Survival Research Articles

Clinical outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR Exon20 in-frame insertions in the near-loop and far-loop: Results from LC-SCRUM-Asia

ObjectivesIn this study, we explored the clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with EGFR Exon20 in-frame insertions (Exon20ins), and the impact of the location of Exon20ins on these clinical outcomes. Materials and methodsThe efficacies of current systemic therapies in NSCLC patients harboring Exon20ins were investigated using a large-scale clinico-genomic database of LC-SCRUM-Asia, and compared with that of amivantamab in the CHRYSALIS trial. ResultsOf the 11,397 patients enrolled in LC-SCRUM-Asia, Exon20ins were detected in 189 patients (1.7 %). Treatment with classical EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (classical TKIs) was associated with a significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) in NSCLC patients with Exon20ins as compared with Exon19 deletions and L858R. Post platinum-based chemotherapy, classical TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were associated with a shorter PFS than with docetaxel in patients with Exon20ins (HR [95 % CI]; TKIs vs docetaxel, 2.16 [1.35–3.46]; ICIs vs docetaxel, 1.49 [1.21–1.84]). Patients treated with amivantamab in the CHRYSALIS trial showed a risk reduction in PFS and overall survival as compared with LC-SCRUM-Asia patients treated with docetaxel, classical TKIs, or ICIs. Among the 189 patients, Exon20ins were classified as near-loop or far-loop insertions in 115 (61 %) and 56 (30 %) patients, respectively. Treatment with osimertinib was associated with a longer PFS in patients with Exon20ins in near-loop as compared with far-loop (median, 5.6 vs. 2.0 months; HR [95 % CI], 0.22 [0.07–0.64]). ConclusionsAfter platinum-based chemotherapy, classical TKIs and ICIs are less effective in NSCLC patients with Exon20ins, and amivantamab may be a promising targeted therapy. There is a possibility that the location of Exon20ins has an impact on the efficacy of TKIs.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint of overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized trials and individual-patient level correlation.

4101 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a heterogeneous group of diseases commonly diagnosed at advanced stages. Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard primary endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, the increasing use of subsequent lines of therapies and cross-over designs may confound the treatment effect. We therefore explored the use of progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint of OS both at the trial-level and at the patient-level. Methods: For the trial-level correlation, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs in advanced BTC following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to June 2022 and identified all randomized phase II/III trials testing systemic therapies for advanced BTC. We used a weighted linear regression to measure the correlation of log-transformed hazard ratios (HR) of OS and PFS based on trial size and calculated the surrogate threshold effect (STE). We used the IQWiG framework to define the strength of evidence. For the individual-level analysis, we included patients with advanced BTC treated with first and second line chemotherapy in the real-world RETUD registry. We estimated the correlation via the iterative multiple imputation method. Results: From a total of 1992 studies, we identified 32 RCTs including 70 treatment arms and 5140 patients that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials were performed in the first line setting and most were phase II RCTs (N = 23). We found a moderate correlation between OS and PFS ( R= 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-0.89). The slope of the regression line was 0.62±0.08, indicating that a 10% risk reduction in PFS will result in a 6.2%±0.8% improvement in OS. The STE was 0.69, suggesting that in a hypothetical trial of 400 patients, a PFS HR of 0.69 will likely result in a significant improvement on OS. Regarding the individual-level correlation, a total of 593 patients with advanced BTC were included. The median age of patients was 68y (IQR 59-74), most were males (54%) and received platinum-based chemotherapy (73.1%). In the first line setting, the median OS was 9.7 months (95% CI 8.7-10.5) and median PFS was 5 months (95% CI 4.5-5.5). We observed a strong correlation between PFS and OS ( r= 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.86). In the second line setting (N = 259), a similar correlation was observed to the first-line setting ( r= 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.8). Conclusions: At the trial-level, in this analysis treatment effects on PFS were moderately correlated with OS. A HR < 0.69 in PFS suggested that it would likely lead to a significant OS benefit in a hypothetical trial including 400 patients. At the individual-level, PFS and OS were strongly correlated in a real-world cohort. Future validation in patients treated in the context of randomized trials is warranted.

Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated DLBCL: an Asia subpopulation analysis from the phase 3 POLARIX trial

AbstractIn the phase 3 POLARIX study in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, polatuzumab vedotin combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) with similar safety. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 6 cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP plus 2 cycles of rituximab alone. For registration of POLARIX in China, consistency of PFS in an Asia subpopulation (defined as ≥50% of the risk reduction in PFS expected in the global population) was evaluated. Overall, 281 patients were analyzed: 160 patients from Asia in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of the global study and 121 from an ITT China extension cohort. Of these, 141 were randomized to Pola-R-CHP and 140 to R-CHOP. At data cutoff (28 June 2021; median follow-up 24.2 months), PFS met the consistency definition with the global population, and was superior with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-1.03). Two-year PFS was 74.2% (95% CI, 65.7-82.7) and 66.5% (95% CI, 57.3-75.6) with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, respectively. Safety was comparable between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, including rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs; 72.9% vs 66.2%, respectively), serious AEs (32.9% vs 32.4%), grade 5 AEs (1.4% vs 0.7%), AEs leading to study treatment discontinuation (5.0% vs 7.2%), and any-grade peripheral neuropathy (44.3% vs 50.4%). These findings demonstrate consistent efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in the Asia and global populations in POLARIX. This trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home as # NCT03274492.

Asia subpopulation analysis from the phase III POLARIX trial.

7558 Background: In the pivotal Phase III POLARIX trial, Pola-R-CHP demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with R-CHOP, with a similar safety profile in patients with previously untreated DLBCL (Tilly et al. 2022). An Asia subpopulation analysis was included as part of the trial design; patients enrolled in Asia were analyzed for the purpose of registration in China of POLARIX (NCT03274492). Methods: Patients from mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (enrolled during the global phase), and from the China extension cohort were included in the Asia subpopulation. POLARIX methods were previously described (Tilly et al. 2022). Briefly, patients with untreated DLBCL were randomized 1:1 using the same stratification factors to receive six cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP, plus two cycles of rituximab alone. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate consistency of PFS (defined as ≥50% risk reduction in PFS) in the Asia subpopulation with the global population. Results: Overall, 281 patients (intent-to-treat population; 150, 85, 31 and 15 patients in mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, respectively) were analyzed (141 received Pola-R-CHP and 140 received R-CHOP); 160 patients from the global population and 121 from the China extension cohort. Median age was 63 (range 19–79) years, and most patients had an International Prognostic Index of 3–5 (61.9%). At the data cut-off of June 28, 2021, (median follow-up of 24.2 months) PFS was superior with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–1.03) and met the consistency definition with the global population. The 2-year PFS rate was 74.2% (95% CI: 65.7–82.7) with Pola-R-CHP vs 66.5% (95% CI: 57.3–75.6) with R-CHOP. Other key efficacy results were similar to the global study results (Table). The safety profile was generally comparable for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, including rates of grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs; 72.9% vs 66.2%), serious AEs (32.9% vs 32.4%), grade 5 AEs (1.4% vs 0.7%), AEs leading to discontinuation of any study treatment (5.0% vs 7.2%), and incidence of peripheral neuropathy (all grades, 44.3% vs 50.4%), respectively. Key efficacy results. CR, complete response. Conclusions: The results from the Asia subpopulation of POLARIX were consistent with the global study, with a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (risk of disease progression, relapse or death reduced by 36%) following treatment with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, and a comparable safety profile in Asian patients with previously untreated DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492. [Table: see text]

Radiological criteria for selecting candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: an exploratory analysis from the PRODIGY study.

In this exploratory analysis from the PRODIGY study, we aimed to define the radiological criteria to identify patients with gastric cancer who may derive maximal clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There were 246 patients allocated to receive surgery followed by adjuvant S-1 (SC group) and 238 allocated to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CSC group). As the PRODIGY's radiological method of lymph node (LN) evaluation considers short diameter and morphology (the size and morphology method), a method considering only short diameter was also employed. In the SC group, the correlation between radiologic and pathologic findings was analyzed. The hazard ratio (HR) for the progression-free survival (PFS) of the CSC group was analyzed in subgroups with different cT/N stages. cT4 disease showed a sensitivity of 85.6% for detecting pT4 and had a low proportion of pathologic stage (pStage) I disease (4.5%). Among the criteria determined by different cT/N stages by each method of LN positivity, those involving cT4Nany or cT4N + by both methods had a minimal proportion of pStage I disease (≤ 5%), while cT4Nany by both methods and cT4N + by the size and morphology method exhibited ≥ 75.9% sensitivity for detecting pStage III disease. The relative risk reduction in PFS of the CSC group was greatest in patients meeting the cT4Nany criterion defined by both methods (HR 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.93). The cT4Nany criterion, regardless of the radiological method used for LN evaluation, may help select patients with resectable gastric cancer for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Ceritinib Efficacy and Safety in Treatment-Naive Asian Patients With Advanced ALK-Rearranged NSCLC: An ASCEND-4 Subgroup Analysis

IntroductionIn the phase 3 ASCEND-4 study, ceritinib exhibited improved progression-free survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) assessment versus the standard first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Here, we assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib in the subgroup of Asian patients from the ASCEND-4 trial. MethodsTreatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV ALK-rearranged nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to receive either oral ceritinib 750 mg/day (fasted) daily or intravenous chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every three wk, followed by pemetrexed maintenance). The primary end point was PFS by BIRC assessment. ResultsOf 376 randomized patients, 158 (42.0%) were Asian (ceritinib arm: N = 76; chemotherapy arm: N = 82). The median time from randomization to the cutoff date (June 24, 2016) was 18.3 months (range = 13.5–34.2) in the Asian subgroup. The median PFS (by BIRC assessment) was 26.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6–not estimable) and 10.6 months (95% CI: 6.7–15.0), with an estimated 34% risk reduction in PFS (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.41–1.05) in the ceritinib arm versus chemotherapy arm. The most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (85.5%), increased alanine aminotransferase and vomiting (73.7% each), and increased aspartate aminotransferase and nausea (69.7% each) in the ceritinib arm, and nausea (49.3%), vomiting (42.7%), and anemia (40.0%) in the chemotherapy arm. ConclusionCeritinib was effective and safe in treatment-naive Asian patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. The findings were largely consistent with that of the overall study population.

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus eight cycles of bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: an indirect comparison using data from the phase 3 ENDEAVOR and CASTOR trials

In ENDEAVOR, carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd56) demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). Both agents were administered until disease progression; the EU label for Vd, however, stipulates a maximum of eight treatment cycles. Here, matching-adjusted treatment comparison was used to compare efficacy of Kd56 with Vd, if Vd was administered for 8 cycles (Vd-8). Data from ENDEAVOR and CASTOR trials (which compared daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with Vd-8) were used. Hazard ratios of PFS were estimated for Vd vs. Vd-8 and Kd vs. Vd-8. For cycles 1–8, risk reduction in PFS for Kd56 vs. Vd-8 was equal to that estimated in ENDEAVOR (HR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.44–0.65). Beyond eight cycles, risk reduction in PFS for Kd56 and Vd-8 was estimated to be 60% (HR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.26–0.63). The analysis suggested that PFS benefit of Kd56 over Vd increases when Vd is given for eight cycles only.

Abstract GS3-08: Alpelisib + fulvestrant for advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analyses from the phase III SOLAR-1 trial

Abstract Background: Hyperactivation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway can occur due to PIK3CA mutations, present in ~40% of patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2—) ABC. SOLAR-1, a Phase 3 randomized, double-blind trial (NCT02437318), investigated efficacy and safety of ALP (α-specific PI3K inhibitor) + FUL in pts with HR+, HER2— ABC. ALP+FUL met the primary endpoint by significantly extending progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (PBO) + FUL in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; 95% CI 0.50—0.85; p=0.00065; median 11.0 vs 5.7 months). Here we report overall survival (OS), subgroup data and safety in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, and PFS by circulating tumor (ct)DNA PIK3CA mutation status in the total population. Methods: Enrollment was open to men/postmenopausal women with PIK3CA-mutant HR+, HER2— ABC and 1 prior line of endocrine therapy. Pts were randomized (1:1) to ALP (300mg/day) + FUL (500mg every 28 days and Cycle 1 Day 15) or PBO+FUL. OS was the key secondary endpoint. PFS was analyzed by PIK3CA mutant status in ctDNA, and in important prognostic subgroups, including line of treatment in ABC and prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) use. Safety was analyzed in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort. Results: 341 pts in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort received ALP+FUL (n=169) or PBO+FUL (n=172). Median follow-up from randomization to data cut-off was 20.0 months. At data cut-off, 92 deaths had occurred (52% of the total 178 pts planned for final OS analysis); 40 for ALP+FUL (24%) and 52 for PBO+FUL (30%). OS results were immature at data cut-off (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.48—1.10; p=0.06; median not estimable vs 26.9 months). There was a 45% risk reduction in PFS for pts with ctDNA PIK3CA mutations (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39—0.79; n=186); 20% for pts without (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.60—1.06; n=363). PFS treatment effect for ALP+FUL vs PBO+FUL was generally consistent across subgroups of interest, with a risk reduction of 29% for pts receiving first-line (1L) treatment (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.49—1.03; n=177), and 39% for 2L treatment (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.42—0.89; n=161); 52% in pts with prior CDK4/6i (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17—1.36; n=20) and 33% in pts without (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51—0.87; n=321). Most frequent all-grade adverse events (AEs; ≥40% in either arm by single preferred term; ALP+FUL vs PBO+FUL) were hyperglycemia (65% vs 9%), diarrhea (54% vs 11%), nausea (46% vs 20%), and rash (40% vs 6%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% pts in either arm were hyperglycemia (fasting plasma glucose >250mg/dL; 37% for ALP+FUL vs <1% for PBO+FUL) and rash (13% vs <1%); discontinuations of ALP+FUL/PBO+FUL due to AEs were 3% vs 2%. Conclusions: ALP+FUL showed consistent clinically meaningful treatment benefit for pts with ctDNA PIK3CA mutant status, and across pt subgroups, including pts with/without prior treatment for ABC and prior CDK4/6i use. OS data were not yet mature at the data cut-off, but OS appeared numerically longer for ALP+FUL vs PBO+FUL after 52% of events. Key words: advanced breast cancer; PI3K; alpelisib; endocrine therapy Citation Format: Juric D, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, Campone M, Loibl S, Rugo HS, Iwata H, Conte P, Mayer IA, Kaufman B, Yamashita T, Lu Y-S, Inoue K, Takahashi M, Pápai Z, Longin A-S, Mills D, Wilke C, Sellami D, Andre F. Alpelisib + fulvestrant for advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analyses from the phase III SOLAR-1 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-08.

First-Line Treatment with Bevacizumab and Platinum Doublet Combination in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study in US Oncology Community Practices.

BackgroundReal-world evidence is lacking on the impact of bevacizumab added to carboplatin/paclitaxel (Bev + CP) therapy versus CP alone for patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC), particularly in those excluded from clinical trials.MethodsThis is a retrospective electronic medical record analysis of patients who received first-line therapy with Bev + CP or CP between 1 October 2006 and 30 June 2013. We identified four subsets: elderly patients (≥65 years), patients with brain/central nervous system (CNS) metastases, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2, and patients receiving anticoagulation. We used descriptive statistics to describe patient characteristics and treatment patterns and evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using survival analyses.ResultsThe study included 431 patients (Bev + CP: 231; CP: 200). The Bev + CP cohort was more likely to receive four or more cycles of induction therapy (72 vs. 50 %) and was more likely to receive maintenance therapy (45 vs. 21 %) than patients receiving CP. In the overall population, median PFS and OS were significantly longer in the Bev + CP cohort than in the CP cohort: 6.7 vs. 5.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.92; p = 0.008) and 11.9 vs. 9.0 months (HR 0.57; 95 % CI 0.44–0.73; p < 0.001), respectively. Treatment with Bev + CP in patients aged ≥65 years and in those with brain/CNS metastases was also associated with a significant risk reduction in PFS (35 and 51 %, respectively; p < 0.05 for both) and OS (46 and 62 %, respectively; p < 0.05 for both) compared with CP alone.ConclusionBev + CP is associated with a significant improvement in PFS and OS in patients with NS-NSCLC and in subsets with brain/CNS metastases and those aged ≥65 years.

Progression-free survival as surrogate endpoint in advanced pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of 30 randomized first-line trials

Progression-free survival (PFS) has not been extensively investigated as a surrogate for survival in the first-line treatments of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this review was to evaluate PFS as a potential surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in advanced pancreatic cancer in trials comparing poly-chemotherapy to gemcitabine alone. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The key words included randomized trial, first-line chemotherapy, pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine and poly-chemotherapy. Adjusted weighted linear regression was used to calculate RS (Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient) between PFS and post-progression survival (PPS) with OS (RS) and between treatment effects on PFS and OS (RHR). A total of 30 trials including 8467 patients met the inclusion criteria. Correlation between the treatment effects on PFS and OS (RHR=0.78) and between the endpoint PFS and OS was high across all studies (RS=0.75). The slope of the regression line was 0.76+/-0.26, indicating that an agent producing a 10% risk reduction for PFS will provide a 7.6%+/-2.6% risk reduction for OS. Correlation between PPS and OS was very strong (RS=0.71) and accounted for more than 50% of the whole OS variability (R2=0.57). Because of the robust correlation with OS and the potential influence of PPS caused by the second line therapies, it may be justified to consider PFS as a surrogate endpoint in trials evaluating new cytotoxic agents when gemcitabine is the control arm.

Phase II Randomized, Multicenter Study of Lenalidomide Vs Best Investigator’s Choice in Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results of the MCL-002 (SPRINT) Study

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with poor outcome, especially after failure of first-line treatment. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, has shown activity in single-arm phase II studies of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The present controlled randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide vs investigator’s choice (IC) in patients with R/R MCL.Methods: MCL-002 (SPRINT), a European multicenter, open-label, phase II study enrolled patients with up to 3 relapses or who failed prior therapy and were ineligible for intensified treatment or stem cell transplantation (NCT00875667). Oral lenalidomide was given at 25 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle until progressive disease (PD) or intolerability. The IC treatment consisted of single-agent therapy with cytarabine, rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, or chlorambucil. Patients who progressed on IC per investigator judgment were allowed to crossover to lenalidomide. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), time to first response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Response assessments were centrally reviewed using the modified IWG criteria.Results: 254 patients with R/R MCL were randomized 2:1 to lenalidomide (n=170) or IC (n=84). Patients had median age 68.5 years, were predominantly male (73%), and had received a median of 2 prior therapies. 91% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis, with 34% high-risk MIPI, 43% high tumor burden, and 20% bulky disease at baseline. Overall, patients on the lenalidomide arm had a worse prognostic profile than the IC arm due to higher tumor burden and disease risk (>5 percentage points for a number of parameters). After a median time of 2.9 months, 39 patients (46%) from the IC arm crossed over to lenalidomide due to PD. Overall, 84 patients remain on lenalidomide (15 having crossed over from IC) and 11 patients on IC without PD.At a median follow-up time on study of 15.9 months, the risk reduction for PFS was 39% (HR=0.61 [95% CI, 0.44-0.84]; P=0.004; Table) in favor of lenalidomide (median PFS: 8.7 months lenalidomide vs 5.2 months IC). ORR was significantly improved for lenalidomide vs IC (40% vs 11%; CR/CRu 5% vs 0%). Median time to first response was 4.3 months for lenalidomide (not reached for IC). Median DOR (16.1 vs 10.4 months) and OS on mature data (27.9 vs 21.2 months) were longer for lenalidomide vs IC. Efficacy results were consistent among subgroups. Safety data in 250 patients receiving ≥1 dose showed more dose reductions in lenalidomide-treated patients (41%) vs IC (17%), due in part to a longer median duration of lenalidomide treatment vs IC, and to strict dose modification rules for lenalidomide. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (lenalidomide 44% vs IC 34% [without increased risk of infection]), thrombocytopenia (18% vs 28%), and leukopenia (8% vs 11%). Tumor flare reaction occurred in lenalidomide patients only (10%; 2% grade ≥3); 1 patient in each arm experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Invasive second primary malignancies were identified in 4% and 5% of lenalidomide and IC treated patients, respectively.Conclusions: The MCL-002 study demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS for lenalidomide over best IC monotherapy in patients with advanced R/R MCL despite a worse prognostic profile in the lenalidomide arm at baseline. In addition, ORR and CR rates, TTR, DOR, and OS were improved for lenalidomide over IC. The DOR has been remarkably consistent in various studies with lenalidomide in MCL patients. The safety profile for lenalidomide was as expected and no new safety signals were identified. The results of this first randomized, controlled study of lenalidomide showed superior efficacy compared to IC in patients with R/R MCL with a manageable toxicity profile.TableEfficacy of lenalidomide vs IC in R/R MCLEfficacyLenalidomide (n=170)IC (n=84)PPFS (Lenalidomide vs IC)Median PFS, mo (95% CI)8.7 (5.54-12.14)5.2 (3.67-6.95)Sequential HR (95% CI)0.61 (0.44-0.84)Sequential log-rank test p-value0.004ORR, n (%)68 (40)9 (11)<0.001CR/CRu, n (%)8 (5)0 (0)0.043Median DOR, mo16.110.40.421Median OS, mo27.921.20.52 DisclosuresTrneny:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Walewski:Celgene: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Mundipharma : Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Jurczak:Celgene, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Spectrum, Takeda, Teva: Research Funding. Belada:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment. Patturajan:Celgene: Employment. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment. Arcaini:Celgene, Roche, Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Surrogate endpoints in metastatic breast cancer treated with targeted therapies: an analysis of the first-line phase III trials

Progression-free survival (PFS) has not yet been established as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In particular, surrogacy has not been investigated with modern molecular agents. Randomized phase III trials for MBC were identified using a PubMed and EMBASE search. Correlations between PFS/time to progression (TTP), post-progression survival (PPS), response rate (RR) and OS were evaluated through a linear regression analysis. We also evaluated the potential of PFS to serve as a surrogate for OS in first-line trials exploring new drugs. Twenty trials with a total of 32 treatment arms and 10,138 patients were included. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r s) between median PFS/TTP, RR and PPS with OS were 0.81 (95 % CI 0.58-0.92), 0.61 (95 % CI 0.59-0.63) and 0.73 (95 % CI 0.71-0.74). The correlation coefficient between hazard ratios in PFS/TTP and OS (HRPFS/TTP/HROS) was 0.73 (95 % CI 0.719-0.738; p < 0.00001); the slope of the regression line was 0.56 ± 0.0034, indicating that an agent producing a 10 % risk reduction for PFS will provide a 5.6 ± 0.34 % risk reduction for OS. In particular, the HRPFS/TTP/HROS correlation is stronger in an HER2-positive setting versus HER2-negative (r s = 0.91 vs. 0.67; p for difference <0.0001). These results suggest that improvements in PFS/TTP in MBC strongly correlate with improvements in OS with molecular agents, especially anti-HER2 therapeutics. Further analyses at patient-level data are required to confirm the surrogacy of PFS for OS with new agents.

Surrogate End Points for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis From 39 Randomized Controlled Trials of First-Line Chemotherapy

Our aims were to determine the correlations between progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and response rate (RR) with overall survival (OS) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), and to identify a potential surrogate for OS. Randomized trials of first-line chemotherapy in MCRC were identified, and statistical analyses were undertaken to evaluate the correlations between the end points. Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were identified containing a total of 87 treatment arms. Among trials, the nonparametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r(s)) between differences (Delta) in surrogate end points (DeltaPFS, DeltaTTP, and DeltaRR) and DeltaOS were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88), 0.52 (95% CI, 0.004 to 0.81), 0.39 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.63), respectively. The r(s) for DeltaPFS was not significantly different from the r(s) DeltaTTP (P = .28). Linear regression analysis was performed using hazard ratios for PFS and OS. There was a strong relationship between hazard ratios for PFS and OS; the slope of the regression line was 0.54 +/- 0.10, indicating that a novel therapy producing a 10% risk reduction for PFS will yield an estimated 5.4% +/- 1% risk reduction for OS. In first-line chemotherapy trials for MCRC, improvements in PFS are strongly associated with improvements in OS. In this patient population, PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. As a clinical end point, PFS offers increased statistical power at a given time of analysis and a significant lead time advantage compared with OS.