Rickard Sandin

Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Dacomitinib is a second-generation, irreversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We compared its efficacy and safety with that of the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (ARCHER 1050), we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years or ≥20 years in Japan and South Korea) with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC and one EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) at 71 academic medical centres and university hospitals in seven countries or special administrative regions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type, was done with a computer-generated random code assigned by a central interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by masked independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774721, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS Between May 9, 2013, and March 20, 2015, 452 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 22·1 months (95% CI 20·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival according to masked independent review was 14·7 months (95% CI 11·1-16·6) in the dacomitinib group and 9·2 months (9·1-11·0) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·47-0·74; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dermatitis acneiform (31 [14%] of 227 patients given dacomitinib vs none of 224 patients given gefitinib), diarrhoea (19 [8%] vs two [1%]), and raised alanine aminotransferase levels (two [1%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 21 (9%) patients given dacomitinib and in ten (4%) patients given gefitinib. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the dacomitinib group (one related to untreated diarrhoea and one to untreated cholelithases/liver disease) and one in the gefitinib group (related to sigmoid colon diverticulitis/rupture complicated by pneumonia). INTERPRETATION Dacomitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC and should be considered as a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group and Pfizer.

Treatment and overall survival in renal cell carcinoma: a Swedish population-based study (2000-2008).

Background:This retrospective register study assessed overall survival (OS) and influential factors on OS in Swedish renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients.Methods:Using three merged national health registers, Cox proportional-hazards analysis was conducted and, in three models, it was used to assess the impact of cytokine (interferon-α and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; sunitinib or sorafenib) treatment on OS in metastatic (m)RCC.Results:From 2000 to 2008, 8009 patients were diagnosed with RCC and 2753 with mRCC (2002–2008). Median OS in RCC patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2008 compared with 2000–2005 was not reached vs 47.9 months (P<0.001), and in mRCC patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2008 compared with 2002–2005, was 12.4 vs 9.6 months, respectively (P=0.004). Factors associated with significantly improved OS in RCC were female gender, lower age, and previous nephrectomy, and, in mRCC female gender, previous nephrectomy, and any TKI prescription (Model 1: median-adjusted OS, 19.4 months (TKI patients) vs 9.7 months (non-TKI patients); hazard ratio, 0.621; P<0.001).Conclusion:OS was improved in Swedish patients diagnosed with RCC and mRCC in the period 2006–2008 compared with 2000–2005 (RCC) and 2002–2005 (mRCC). Although multifactorial in origin, results suggest that increased nephrectomy rates and the use of TKIs contributed to the improvement seen in mRCC patients.

Improved overall survival after implementation of targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the Danish Renal Cancer Group (DARENCA) study-2

AIM To evaluate the implementation of targeted therapy on overall survival (OS) in a complete national cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS All Danish patients with mRCC referred for first line treatment with immunotherapy, TKIs or mTOR-inhibitors between 2006 and 2010 were included. Baseline and outcome data were collected retrospectively. Prognostics factors were identified using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard model. Differences in distributions were tested with the Chi-square test. RESULTS 1049 patients were referred; 744 patients received first line treatment. From 2006 to 2010 we observed a significant increase in the number of referred patients; a significant increase in treated patients (64% versus 75%, P=0.0188); a significant increase in first line targeted therapy (22% versus 75%, P<0.0001); a significant increase in second line treatment (20% versus 40%, P=0.0104), a significant increased median OS (11.5 versus 17.2 months, P=0.0435) whereas survival for untreated patients remained unchanged. Multivariate analysis validated known prognostic factors. Moreover, treatment start years 2008 (HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; P=0.0415), 2009 (HR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P=0.0277) and 2010 (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47-0.86; P=0.0035) compared to 2006, and more than two treatment lines received for patients with performance status 0-1 (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.58-0.99; P=0.0397) and performance status 2-3 (HR 0.19, 95% CI, 0.06-0.60; P=0.0051) were significantly associated with longer OS. CONCLUSION This retrospective study documents that the implementation of targeted therapy has resulted in significantly improved treatment rates and overall survival in a complete national cohort of treated mRCC patients.

Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology.

Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard in measuring the treatment effect of new drug therapies for cancer. However, practical factors may preclude the collection of unconfounded OS data, and surrogate endpoints are often used instead. Meta-analyses have been widely used for the validation of surrogate endpoints, specifically in oncology. This research reviewed published meta-analyses on the types of surrogate measures used in oncology studies and examined the extent of correlation between surrogate endpoints and OS for different cancer types. A search was conducted in October 2010 to compile available published evidence in the English language for the validation of disease progression-related endpoints as surrogates of OS, based on meta-analyses. We summarize published meta-analyses that quantified the correlation between progression-based endpoints and OS for multiple advanced solid-tumor types. We also discuss issues that affect the interpretation of these findings. Progression-free survival is the most commonly used surrogate measure in studies of advanced solid tumors, and correlation with OS is reported for a limited number of cancer types. Given the increased use of crossover in trials and the availability of second-/third-line treatment options available to patients after progression, it will become increasingly more difficult to establish correlation between effects on progression-free survival and OS in additional tumor types.

Analyzing Overall Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials with Crossover and Implications for Economic Evaluation

BACKGROUND Offering patients in oncology trials the opportunity to cross over to active treatment at disease progression is a common strategy to address ethical issues associated with placebo controls but may lead to statistical challenges in the analysis of overall survival and cost-effectiveness because crossover leads to information loss and dilution of comparative clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVES We provide an overview of how to address crossover, implications for risk-effect estimates of survival (hazard ratios) and cost-effectiveness, and how this influences decisions of reimbursement agencies. Two case studies using data from two phase III sunitinib oncology trials are used as illustration. METHODS We reviewed the literature on statistical methods for adjusting for crossover and recent health technology assessment decisions in oncology. RESULTS We show that for a trial with a high proportion of crossover from the control arm to the investigational arm, the choice of the statistical method greatly affects treatment-effect estimates and cost-effectiveness because the range of relative mortality risk for active treatment versus control is broad. With relatively frequent crossover, one should consider either the inverse probability of censoring weighting or the rank-preserving structural failure time model to minimize potential bias, with choice dependent on crossover characteristics, trial size, and available data. A large proportion of crossover favors the rank-preserving structural failure time model, while large sample size and abundant information about confounding factors favors the inverse probability of censoring weighting model. When crossover is very infrequent, methods yield similar results. CONCLUSIONS Failure to correct for crossover may lead to suboptimal decisions by pricing and reimbursement authorities, thereby limiting an effective drugs potential.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Study Type – Therapy (economic)

Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.

Trials of new oncology treatments often involve a crossover element in their design that allows patients receiving the control treatment to crossover to receive the experimental treatment at disease progression or when sufficient evidence about the efficacy of the new treatment is achieved. Crossover leads to contamination of the initial randomized groups due to a mixing of the effects of the control and experimental treatments in the reference group. This is further complicated by the fact that crossover is often a very selective process whereby patients who switch treatment have a different prognosis than those who do not. Standard statistical techniques, including those that attempt to account for the treatment switch, cannot fully adjust for the bias introduced by crossover. Specialized methods such as rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) models and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses are designed to deal with selective treatment switching and have been increasingly applied to adjust for crossover. We provide an overview of the crossover problem and highlight circumstances under which it is likely to cause bias. We then describe the RPSFT and IPCW methods and explain how these methods adjust for the bias, highlighting the assumptions invoked in the process. Our aim is to facilitate understanding of these complex methods using a case study to support explanations. We also discuss the implications of crossover adjustment on cost-effectiveness results.

Characterizing fatigue associated with sunitinib and its impact on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Using phase 3 trial data for sunitinib versus interferon (IFN)‐α in treatment‐naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, retrospective analyses characterized sunitinib‐associated fatigue and its impact on patient‐reported health‐related quality of life (HRQoL).

Assessment of progression-free survival as a surrogate end-point for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND To determine suitability of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate end-point for overall survival (OS), we evaluated the relationship between PFS and OS in 750 treatment-naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who received sunitinib or interferon-alpha (IFN-α) in a phase III study. METHODS The relationship between PFS and post-progression survival (PPS; the difference between PFS and OS) was studied, which correctly removes inherent dependencies between PFS and OS, to properly estimate whether and to what extent PFS can serve as a surrogate for OS. A Weibull parametric model to failure time data was fit to determine whether longer PFS was significantly and meaningfully predictive of longer PPS. In a sensitivity analysis by Kaplan-Meier non-parametric method, PPS curves for three approximately equal numbered groups of patients categorised by PFS were compared by log-rank test. RESULTS In the Weibull parametric model, longer PFS was significantly predictive of longer PPS (P<0.001). The model also allowed prediction of estimated median PPS duration from actual PFS times. In the Kaplan-Meier (non-parametric) analysis, incrementally longer PFS was also associated with longer PPS, and the PPS curves for the three PFS groups were significantly different (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS A positive relationship was found between PFS and PPS duration in individual mRCC patients randomised to first-line treatment with sunitinib or IFN-α. These results indicate that PFS can act as a surrogate end-point for OS in the first-line mRCC setting and provide clinical researchers with a potentially useful approach to estimate median PPS based on PFS.

A five-factor biomarker profile obtained week 4-12 of treatment for improved prognostication in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from DARENCA study 2

Abstract Background: Several biomarkers of treatment efficacy have been associated with a better prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic significance of biomarkers in the early treatment phase is unclear. Material and methods: In a complete national cohort of mRCC patients receiving first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or interleukin-2 based immunotherapy (IT) from 2006 to 2010, overall survival (OS) was analysed for baseline International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) classification factors and on-treatment time-dependent biomarkers obtained day 1 each cycle week 4–12 after treatment initiation with multivariate analysis and bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 735 patients received first-line TKI (59%) or IT (41%). Median OS was overall 14.0 months and 33.4, 18.5, and 5.8 months for baseline IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, neutrophils < lower level of normal (LLN), platelets < LLN, sodium ≥ LLN, and LDH ≤1.5 times upper level of normal after treatment initiation were significantly associated with favourable OS independent of baseline IMDC risk group in multivariate analyses stratified for TKI and IT (p ≤ 0.04). Concordance (C)-index for IMDC classification alone was 0.625 (95% CI 0.59–0.66) and combined with the five-factor biomarker profile 0.683 (95% CI 0.64–0.72). For patients with good (3–5 factors) and poor (0–2 factors) biomarker profile median OS were 23.5 and 9.6 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Adding the five-factor biomarker profile significantly improved prognostication in IMDC intermediate (25.7 vs. 12.0 months, p < 0.0001) and poor (12.8 vs. 6.4 months, p < 0.0001) risk groups. A trend was seen in IMDC favourable risk group (38.9 vs. 28.7 months, p = 0.112). Conclusion: On-treatment hypertension, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, LDH below 1.5 times upper level of normal, and normal sodium, obtained week 4–12 of treatment, are independent biomarkers of favourable outcome in mRCC, independent of treatment type.