Overall Survival Endpoint in Oncology Clinical Trials: Addressing the Effect of Crossover - The Case of Pazopanib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Objective: To identify the issues of using overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint in the presence of crossover and the statistical analyses available to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover in oncology clinical trials. Methods: An indirect comparison was conducted between pazopanib and sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Statistical adjustment methods were used to estimate the true comparative effectiveness of these treatments. Recently, a head-to-head trial comparing pazopanib and sunitinib was completed. This provided the opportunity to compare the OS treatment effect estimated for pazopanib versus sunitinib using indirect comparison and statistical adjustment techniques with that observed in the head-to-head trial. Results: Using a rank-preserving structural failure time model to adjust for crossover in the pazopanib registration trial, the indirect comparison of pazopanib versus sunitinib resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.97, while an unadjusted analysis resulted in an OS HR of 1.96. The head-to-head trial reported a final OS HR of 0.92 for pazopanib versus sunitinib. Conclusion: This case study supports the need to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover, which enables trials to meet ethical standards and provides decision makers with a more accurate estimate of treatment benefit

Impact of adverse events, treatment modifications, and dose intensity on survival among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first‐line sunitinib: a medical chart review across ten centers in five European countries

Angiogenesis inhibitors have become standard of care for advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but data on the impact of adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications associated with these agents are limited. Medical records were abstracted at 10 tertiary oncology centers in Europe for 291 patients ≥18 years old treated with sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced RCC (no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease). Logistic regression models were estimated to compare dose intensity among patients who did and did not experience AEs during the landmark periods (18, 24, and 30 weeks). Cox proportional hazard models were used to explore the possible relationship of low-dose intensity (defined using thresholds of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9) and treatment modifications during the landmark periods to survival. 64.4% to 67.9% of patients treated with sunitinib reported at least one AE of any grade, and approximately 10% of patients experienced at least one severe (grade 3 or 4) AE. Patients reporting severe AEs were statistically significantly more likely to have dose intensities below either 0.8 or 0.9. Dose intensity below 0.7 and dose discontinuation during all landmark periods were statistically significantly associated with shorter survival time. This study of advanced RCC patients treated with sunitinib in Europe found a significant relationship between AEs and dose intensity. It also found correlations between dose intensity and shorter survival, and between dose discontinuation and shorter survival. These results confirm the importance of tolerable treatment and maintaining dose intensity

Supplementary Material for: Overall Survival Endpoint in Oncology Clinical Trials: Addressing the Effect of Crossover - The Case of Pazopanib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To identify the issues of using overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint in the presence of crossover and the statistical analyses available to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover in oncology clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An indirect comparison was conducted between pazopanib and sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Statistical adjustment methods were used to estimate the true comparative effectiveness of these treatments. Recently, a head-to-head trial comparing pazopanib and sunitinib was completed. This provided the opportunity to compare the OS treatment effect estimated for pazopanib versus sunitinib using indirect comparison and statistical adjustment techniques with that observed in the head-to-head trial. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Using a rank-preserving structural failure time model to adjust for crossover in the pazopanib registration trial, the indirect comparison of pazopanib versus sunitinib resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.97, while an unadjusted analysis resulted in an OS HR of 1.96. The head-to-head trial reported a final OS HR of 0.92 for pazopanib versus sunitinib. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This case study supports the need to adjust for confounded OS due to crossover, which enables trials to meet ethical standards and provides decision makers with a more accurate estimate of treatment benefit