Recommendations to choose the primary endpoint in cardiovascular clinical trials

Background – A composite endpoint is often used as the primary endpoint to assess the efficacy of a new treatment in randomized clinical trials (RCT). In cardiovascular trials, the often rare event of the relevant primary endpoint (individual or composite), such as cardiovascular death (CV death), Myocardial Infarction (MI), or both, is combined with a more common secondary endpoint, such as target lesion revascularization, with the aim to increase the statistical power of the study. Methods – Gómez and Lagakos developed statistical methodology to be used at the design stage of a RCT for deciding whether to expand a study relevant primary endpoint e1 to e*, the composite of e1 and a secondary endpoint e2. The method uses the asymptotic relative efficiency of the logrank test for comparing treatment groups based on e1 versus the logrank test based on e*. The method is used to assess, in the cardiovascular research area, the characteristics of the candidate individual endpoints that should govern the choice of using a composite endpoint as the primary endpoint in a clinical trial. Results and conclusions – A set of recommendations is provided based on the reported values of the frequencies of observing each candidate endpoint as well as on the magnitude of the effect of treatment as expressed by the hazard ratio, supported by cardiovascular RCTs published in 2008.Preprin

Lessons learnt from scoring adjuvant colon cancer trials and meta-analyses using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.1

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments. METHODS: Adjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming. CONCLUSION: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies

VEGF pathway targeting agents, vessel normalization and tumor drug uptake:from bench to bedside

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway targeting agents have been combined with other anticancer drugs, leading to improved efficacy in carcinoma of the cervix, stomach, lung, colon and rectum, ovary, and breast. Vessel normalization induced by VEGF pathway targeting agents influences tumor drug uptake. Following bevacizumab treatment, preclinical and clinical studies have shown a decrease in tumor delivery of radiolabeled antibodies and two chemotherapeutic drugs. The decrease in vessel pore size during vessel normalization might explain the decrease in tumor drug uptake. Moreover, the addition of bevacizumab to cetuximab, or panitumumab in colorectal cancer patients or to trastuzumab in breast cancer patients, did not improve efficacy. However, combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy did increase efficacy in some cancer types. Novel biomarkers to select patients who may benefit from combination therapies, such as the effect of an angiogenesis inhibitor on tumor perfusion, requires innovative trial designs and large clinical trials. Small imaging studies with radiolabeled drugs could be used in the interphase to gain further insight into the interplay between VEGF targeted therapy, vessel normalization and tumor drug delivery

Prognostic stratification of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: comparison with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering prognostic factors model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment paradigm in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed in the recent years. Sunitinib has been established as a new standard for first-line therapy. We studied the prognostic significance of baseline characteristics and we compared the risk stratification with the established Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a retrospective analysis of patients treated in six Greek Oncology Units of HECOG. Inclusion criteria were: advanced renal cell carcinoma not amenable to surgery and treatment with Sunitinib. Previous cytokine therapy but no targeted agents were allowed. Overall survival (OS) was the major end point. Significance of prognostic factors was evaluated with multivariate cox regression analysis. A model was developed to stratify patients according to risk.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and nine patients were included. Median follow up has been 15.8 months and median OS 17.1 months (95% CI: 13.7-20.6). Time from diagnosis to the start of Sunitinib (<= 12 months vs. >12 months, p = 0.001), number of metastatic sites (1 vs. >1, p = 0.003) and performance status (PS) (<= 1 vs >1, p = 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Stratification in two risk groups ("low" risk: 0 or 1 risk factors; "high" risk: 2 or 3 risk factors) resulted in distinctly different OS (median not reached [NR] vs. 10.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.3-13.3], p < 0.001). The application of the MSKCC risk criteria resulted in stratification into 3 groups (low and intermediate and poor risk) with distinctly different prognosis underlying its validity. Nevertheless, MSKCC model did not show an improved prognostic performance over the model developed by this analysis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Studies on risk stratification of patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies are warranted. Our results suggest that a simpler than the MSKCC model can be developed. Such models should be further validated.</p

Failure of Cytarabine in Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy Associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection

Background Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy affects about 4 percent of patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and survival after the diagnosis of leukoencephalopathy averages only about three months. There have been anecdotal reports of improvement but no controlled trials of therapy with antiretroviral treatment plus intravenous or intrathecal cytarabine. Methods In this multicenter trial, 57 patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and biopsy-confirmed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: antiretroviral therapy alone, antiretroviral therapy plus intravenous cytarabine, or antiretroviral therapy plus intrathecal cytarabine. After a lead-in period of 1 to 2 weeks, active treatment was given for 24 weeks. For most patients, antiretroviral therapy consisted of zidovudine plus either didanosine or stavudine. Results At the time of the last analysis, 14 patients in each treatment group had died, and there were no significant differences in survival among the three groups (P=0.85 by the log-rank test). The median survival times (11, 8, and 15 weeks) were similar to those in previous studies. Only seven patients completed the 24 weeks of treatment. Anemia and thrombocytopenia were more frequent in patients who received antiretroviral therapy in combination with intravenous cytarabine than in the other groups. Conclusions Cytarabine administered either intravenously or intrathecally does not improve the prognosis of HIV-infected patients with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy who are treated with the antiretroviral agents we used, nor does high-dose antiretroviral therapy alone appear to improve survival over that reported in untreated patients

Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules

Background The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit. Methods Based on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB. Results For particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment. Conclusions RB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer: a joint analysis of OnCovid and ESMO-CoCARE registries

BackgroundAs management and prevention strategies against COVID-19 evolve, it is still uncertain whether prior exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affects COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.MethodsIn a joint analysis of ICI recipients from OnCovid (NCT04393974) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) CoCARE registries, we assessed severity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer and explored whether prior immune-related adverse events (irAEs) influenced outcome from COVID-19.FindingsThe study population consisted of 240 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and February 2022 exposed to ICI within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with a 30-day case fatality rate (CFR30) of 23.6% (95% CI 17.8 to 30.7%). Overall, 42 (17.5%) were fully vaccinated prior to COVID-19 and experienced decreased CFR30 (4.8% vs 28.1%, p=0.0009), hospitalization rate (27.5% vs 63.2%, p<0.0001), requirement of oxygen therapy (15.8% vs 41.5%, p=0.0030), COVID-19 complication rate (11.9% vs 34.6%, p=0.0040), with a reduced need for COVID-19-specific therapy (26.3% vs 57.9%, p=0.0004) compared with unvaccinated patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-fitted multivariable analysis, following a clustered-robust correction for the data source (OnCovid vs ESMO CoCARE), confirmed that vaccinated patients experienced a decreased risk of death at 30 days (adjusted OR, aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.69).Overall, 38 patients (15.8%) experienced at least one irAE of any grade at any time prior to COVID-19, at a median time of 3.2 months (range 0.13-48.7) from COVID-19 diagnosis. IrAEs occurred independently of baseline characteristics except for primary tumor (p=0.0373) and were associated with a significantly decreased CFR30 (10.8% vs 26.0%, p=0.0462) additionally confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.67). Patients who experienced irAEs also presented a higher median absolute lymphocyte count at COVID-19 (1.4 vs 0.8 10(9) cells/L, p=0.0098).ConclusionAnti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in ICI recipients. History of irAEs might identify patients with pre-existing protection from COVID-19, warranting further investigation of adaptive immune determinants of protection from SARS-CoV-2

Evaluation of six CTLA-4 polymorphisms in high-risk melanoma patients receiving adjuvant interferon therapy in the He13A/98 multicenter trial

<p>ABSTRACT</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Interferon is approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with stage IIb/III melanoma. The toxicity and uncertainty regarding survival benefits of interferon have qualified its acceptance, despite significant durable relapse prevention in a fraction of patients. Predictive biomarkers that would enable selection of patients for therapy would have a large impact upon clinical practice. Specific CTLA-4 polymorphisms have previously shown an association with response to CTLA-4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma and the development of autoimmunity.</p> <p>Experimental design</p> <p>286 melanoma patients and 288 healthy controls were genotyped for six CTLA-4 polymorphisms previously suggested to be important (AG 49, CT 318, CT 60, JO 27, JO30 and JO 31). Specific allele frequencies were compared between the healthy and patient populations, as well as presence or absence of these in relation to recurrence. Alleles related to autoimmune disease were also investigated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No significant differences were found between the distributions of CTLA-4 polymorphisms in the melanoma population compared with healthy controls. Relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly between patients with the alleles represented by these polymorphisms. No correlation between autoimmunity and specific alleles was shown. The six polymorphisms evaluated where strongly associated (Fisher's exact p-values < 0.001 for all associations) and significant linkage disequilibrium among these was indicated.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>No polymorphisms of CTLA-4 defined by the SNPs studied were correlated with improved RFS, OS, or autoimmunity in this high-risk group of melanoma patients.</p