Assessment of the consistency and robustness of results from a multicenter trial of remission maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data from a randomized multinational phase 3 trial of 320 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that maintenance therapy with 3-week cycles of histamine dihydrochloride plus low-dose interleukin-2 (HDC/IL-2) for up to 18 months significantly improved leukemia-free survival (LFS) but lacked power to detect an overall survival (OS) difference.</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To assess the consistency of treatment benefit across patient subsets and the robustness of data with respect to trial centers and endpoints.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forest plots were constructed with hazard ratios (HRs) of HDC/IL-2 treatment effects versus no treatment (control) for prospectively defined patient subsets. Inconsistency coefficients (I²) and interaction tests (X²) were used to detect any differences in benefit among subsets. Robustness of results to the elimination of individual study centers was performed using "leave-one-center-out" analyses. Associations between treatment effects on the endpoints were evaluated using weighted linear regression between HRs for LFS and OS estimated within countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The benefit of HDC/IL-2 over controls was statistically consistent across all subsets defined by baseline prognostic variables. I²and <it>P</it>-values of X²ranged from 0.00 to 0.51 and 0.14 to 0.91, respectively. Treatment effects were statistically significant in 14 of 28 subsets analyzed. The "leave-one-center-out" analysis confirmed that no single center dominated (<it>P</it>-values ranged from 0.004 to 0.020 [mean 0.009]). The HRs representing the HDC/IL-2 effects on LFS and OS were strongly correlated at the country level (R²= 0.84).</p> <p>Limitations</p> <p>Small sample sizes in some of the subsets analyzed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These analyses confirm the consistency and robustness of the HDC/IL-2 effect as compared with no treatment. LFS may be an acceptable surrogate for OS in future AML trials. Analyses of consistency and robustness may aid interpretation of data from multicenter trials, especially in populations with rare diseases, when the size of randomized clinical trials is limited.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00003991">NCT00003991</a></p

A Randomized Controlled Trial of OPT-302, a VEGF-C/D Inhibitor for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Funding Information: The trial was wholly funded by Opthea Ltd (Victoria, Australia). Opthea designed and interpreted the trial data, with input from consultant clinical advisors (T.L.J., J.S., P.U.D., C.C.W., D.S.B.). Opthea partnered with 2 contract research organizations during the conduct of the study, with Pharmaceutical Product Development LLC (Wilmington, DE) to execute the study, and with International Drug Development Institute (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) to undertake the data management and biostatistical analysis. Opthea (and the coauthors) provided critical review of the first draft manuscript (prepared by T.L.J.). Publisher Copyright: © 2023 American Academy of OphthalmologyPurpose: Neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is driven by VEGFs A, C, and D, which promote angiogenesis and vascular permeability. Intravitreal injections of anti–VEGF-A drugs are the standard of care, but these do not inhibit VEGF-C and D, which may explain why many patients fail to respond fully. This trial aimed to test the safety and efficacy of OPT-302, a biologic inhibitor of VEGF-C and D, in combination with the anti–VEGF-A inhibitor ranibizumab. Design: Dose-ranging, phase 2b, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial. Participants: Participants with treatment-naive nAMD were enrolled from 109 sites across Europe, Israel, and the United States. Methods: Participants were randomized to 6, 4-weekly, intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg OPT-302, 2.0 mg OPT-302, or sham, plus intravitreal 0.5 mg ranibizumab. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was mean change in ETDRS best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes (comparing baseline with week 24) were the proportion of participants gaining or losing ≥ 15 ETDRS BCVA letters; area under the ETDRS BCVA over time curve; change in spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) central subfield thickness; and change in intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid on SD-OCT. Results: Of 366 participants recruited from December 1, 2017, to November 30, 2018, 122, 123, and 121 were randomized to 0.5 mg OPT-302, 2.0 mg OPT-302, and sham, respectively. Mean (± standard deviation) visual acuity gain in the 2.0 mg OPT-302 group was significantly superior to sham (+14.2 ± 11.61 vs. +10.8 ± 11.52 letters; P = 0.01). The 0.5 mg OPT-302 group was not significantly different than the sham group (+9.44 ± 11.32 letters; P = 0.83). Compared with sham, the secondary BCVA outcomes favored the 2.0 mg OPT-302 group, with structural outcomes favoring both OPT-302 dosage groups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar across groups, with 16 (13.3%), 7 (5.6%), and 10 (8.3%) participants in the lower-dose, higher-dose, and sham groups, respectively, developing at least 1 serious AE. Two unrelated deaths both occurred in the sham arm. Conclusions: Significantly superior vision gain was observed with OPT-302 2.0 mg combination therapy, versus standard of care, with favorable safety (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03345082). Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.Peer reviewe

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials show suboptimal validity of surrogate outcomes for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer

Objectives: To quantify and compare the treatment effects on three surrogate end points, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and tumor response rate (TR) vs. overall survival (OS) based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drug interventions in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). Study Design and Setting: We systematically searched for RCTs of pharmacologic therapies in aCRC between 2003 and 2013. Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded based on a predefined form. Univariate and multivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled summary treatment effects. The ratio of hazard ratios (HRs)/odds ratios (ORs) and difference in medians were used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects on the surrogate end points and OS. Spearman ρ, surrogate threshold effect (STE), and R2 were also estimated across predefined trial-level covariates. Results: We included 101 RCTs. In univariate and multivariate meta-analyses, we found larger treatment effects for the surrogates than for OS. Compared with OS, treatment effects were on average 13% higher when HRs were measured and 3% to 45% higher when ORs were considered; differences in median PFS/TTP were higher than on OS by an average of 0.5 month. Spearman ρ ranged from 0.39 to 0.80, mean R2 from 0.06 to 0.65, and STE was 0.8 for HRPFS, 0.64 for HRTTP, or 0.28 for ORTR. The stratified analyses revealed high variability across all strata. Conclusion: None of the end points in this study were found to achieve the level of evidence (ie, mean R2trial &gt; 0.60) that has been set to select high or excellent correlation levels by common surrogate evaluation tools. Previous surrogacy relationships observed between PFS and TTP vs. OS in selected settings may not apply across other classes or lines of therapy

The Net Benefit of a treatment should take the correlation between benefits and harms into account

OBJECTIVE: The assessment of benefits and harms from experimental treatments often ignores the association between outcomes. Generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) can be used to assess the Net Benefit of treatment in a randomized trial accounting for that association.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We use GPC to analyze a fictitious trial of treatment versus control, with a binary efficacy outcome (response) and a binary toxicity outcome, as well as data from two actual randomized trials in oncology. In all cases, we compute the Net Benefit for scenarios with different orders of priority between response and toxicity, and a range of odds ratios (ORs) for the association between outcomes.RESULTS: The GPC Net Benefit was quite different from the benefit/harm computed using marginal treatment effects on response and toxicity. In the fictitious trial using response as first priority, treatment had an unfavorable Net Benefit if OR1. With OR=1, the Net Benefit was 0. Results changed drastically using toxicity as first priority.CONCLUSION: Even in a simple situation, marginal treatment effects can be misleading. In contrast, GPC assesses the Net Benefit as a function of the treatment effects on each outcome, the association between outcomes, and individual patient priorities

Use of surrogate endpoints in healthcare policy : proposal for consistent adoption of a validation framework

We propose a three step framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints for health policy decisions on health technologies

Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the last years, several groups have identified prognostic gene expression signatures with apparently similar performances. However, signatures were never compared on an independent population of untreated breast cancer patients, where risk assessment was computed using the original algorithms and microarray platforms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We compared three gene expression signatures, the 70-gene, the 76-gene and the Gene expression Grade Index (GGI) signatures, in terms of predicting distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) for the individual patient. To this end, we used the previously published TRANSBIG independent validation series of node-negative untreated primary breast cancer patients. We observed agreement in prediction for 135 of 198 patients (68%) when considering the three signatures. When comparing the signatures two by two, the agreement in prediction was 71% for the 70- and 76-gene signatures, 76% for the 76-gene signature and the GGI, and 88% for the 70-gene signature and the GGI. The three signatures had similar capabilities of predicting DMFS and added significant prognostic information to that provided by the classical parameters.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the difference in development of these signatures and the limited overlap in gene identity, they showed similar prognostic performance, adding to the growing evidence that these prognostic signatures are of clinical relevance.</p