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

Thrombopoietin Receptor Levels in Tumor Cell Lines and Primary Tumors

Thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor agonists represent a new approach for the treatment of thrombocytopenia, which may develop as a consequence of immune thrombocytopenia, chemotherapy treatment, chronic hepatitis C infection, or myelodysplastic syndromes. There are concerns that use of certain growth factors can hasten disease progression in some types of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. In this study, expression of MPL (TPO-R) mRNA was examined in tumor cell lines, patient tumor samples (renal cell carcinoma, prostatic carcinoma, soft tissue and bony/cartilage sarcoma, colon cancer, and lymphoma), and normal tissues using microarray analysis and qRT-PCR. MPL mRNA is expressed at very low or undetectable levels compared with erythropoietin receptor (EPOR), human epidermal growth factor (ERBB2; HER2), and insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R) in these patient samples. These data suggest TPO-R agonists will likely preferentially stimulate proliferation and differentiation of cells of megakaryocytic lineage, potentially demonstrating their utility for correcting thrombocytopenia in clinical settings

Cytokine and angiogenic factors associated with efficacy and toxicity of pazopanib in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: An EORTC-STBSG study

Background: Pazopanib has activity in relapsed non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). A series of serum cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) at baseline and changes in soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (sVEGFR2) or placental-derived growth factor (PlGF) levels during treatment were explored for their association with outcome.Methods:Twenty-three baseline CAFs, and sVEGFR2 and PlGF changes were measured in 85 and 32 patients, respectively. Associations between baseline CAF levels and efficacy parameters, plus between-week 12 sVEGFR2 and PlGF levels and pazopanib-specific toxicities were investigated.Results:At baseline, low interleukin (IL)-12 p40 subunit and MPC3 levels were associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks (PFS 12wks), low basic nerve growth factor and hepatocyte growth factor with a better PFS, and low inter-cellular adhesion molecule-1 and IL-2 receptor alpha with prolonged overall survival (OS; all P=0.05). Pazopanib decreased sVEGFR2 and increased PlGF levels. Low sVEGFR2 and high PlGF levels at week 12 were associated with higher-grade hypertension, with TSH elevations and with poorer PFS 12wks, and OS (both P=0.05).Conclusion:Several baseline CAFs were related to outcome parameters. Low sVEGFR2 and high PlGF at week 12 associate with several pazopanib-specific toxicities and poorer efficacy. If confirmed, these factors may be used as early markers for response to and toxicity from pazopanib, enabling further individualisation of STS treatment

IL8 polymorphisms and overall survival in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for association with overall survival (OS) in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: The discovery analysis tested 27 SNPs within 13 genes from a phase III pazopanib trial (N=241, study 1). Suggestive associations were then pursued in two independent datasets: a phase III trial (COMPARZ) comparing pazopanib vs sunitinib (N=729, study 2) and an observational study of sunitinib-treated patients (N=89, study 3). RESULTS: In study 1, four SNPs showed nominally significant association (P≤0.05) with OS; two of these SNPs (rs1126647, rs4073) in IL8 were associated (P≤0.05) with OS in study 2. Because rs1126647 and rs4073 were highly correlated, only rs1126647 was evaluated in study 3, which also showed association (P≤0.05). In the combined data, rs1126647 was associated with OS after conservative multiple-test adjustment (P=8.8 × 10(-5); variant vs reference allele hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52), without evidence for heterogeneity of effects between studies or between pazopanib- and sunitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Variant alleles of IL8 polymorphisms are associated with poorer survival outcomes in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with aRCC. These findings provide insight in aRCC prognosis and may advance our thinking in development of new therapies

Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials

Phase I clinical trials are an essential step in the development of anticancer drugs. The main goal of these studies is to establish the recommended dose and/or schedule of new drugs or drug combinations for phase II trials. The guiding principle for dose escalation in phase I trials is to avoid exposing too many patients to subtherapeutic doses while preserving safety and maintaining rapid accrual. Here we review dose escalation methods for phase I trials, including the rule-based and model-based dose escalation methods that have been developed to evaluate new anticancer agents. Toxicity has traditionally been the primary endpoint for phase I trials involving cytotoxic agents. However, with the emergence of molecularly targeted anticancer agents, potential alternative endpoints to delineate optimal biological activity, such as plasma drug concentration and target inhibition in tumor or surrogate tissues, have been proposed along with new trial designs. We also describe specific methods for drug combinations as well as methods that use a time-to-event endpoint or both toxicity and efficacy as endpoints. Finally, we present the advantages and drawbacks of the various dose escalation methods and discuss specific applications of the methods in developmental oncotherapeutics