Halabi, Susan

Integrating diverse types of prognostic information into accurate, individualized estimates of outcome in colorectal cancer is challenging. Significant heterogeneity in colorectal cancer prognostication tool quality exists. Methodology is incompletely or inadequately reported. Evaluations of the internal or external validity of the prognostic model are rarely performed. Prognostication tools are important devices for patient management, but tool reliability is compromised by poor quality. Guidance for future development of prognostication tools in colorectal cancer is needed.

Background: Futility (inefficacy) interim monitoring is an important component in the conduct of phase III clinical trials, especially in life-threatening diseases. Desirable futility monitoring guidelines allow timely stopping if the new therapy is harmful or if it is unlikely to demonstrate to be sufficiently effective if the trial were to continue to its final analysis. There are a number of analytical approaches that are used to construct futility monitoring boundaries. The most common approaches are based on conditional power, sequential testing of the alternative hypothesis, or sequential confidence intervals. The resulting futility boundaries vary considerably with respect to the level of evidence required for recommending stopping the study. Purpose: We evaluate the performance of commonly used methods using event histories from completed phase III clinical trials of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Methods: We considered published superiority phase III trials with survival endpoints initiated after 1990. There are 52 studies available for this analysis from different disease sites. Total sample size and maximum number of events (statistical information) for each study were calculated using protocol-specified effect size, type I and type II error rates. In addition to the common futility approaches, we considered a recently proposed linear inefficacy boundary approach with an early harm look followed by several lack-of-efficacy analyses. For each futility approach, interim test statistics were generated for three schedules with different analysis frequency, and early stopping was recommended if the interim result crossed a futility stopping boundary. For trials not demonstrating superiority, the impact of each rule is summarized as savings on sample size, study duration, and information time scales. Results: For negative studies, our results show that the futility approaches based on testing the alternative hypothesis and repeated confidence interval rules yielded less savings (compared to the other two rules). These boundaries are too conservative, especially during the first half of the study (<50% of information). The conditional power rules are too aggressive during the second half of the study (>50% of information) and may stop a trial even when there is a clinically meaningful treatment effect. The linear inefficacy boundary with three or more interim analyses provided the best results. For positive studies, we demonstrated that none of the futility rules would have stopped the trials. Conclusion: The linear inefficacy boundary futility approach is attractive from statistical, clinical, and logistical standpoints in clinical trials evaluating new anti-cancer agents.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Purpose To update the recommendations for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma. The Update Committee expanded the guideline to include a discussion of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Methods For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full panel completed a review and analysis of data published since 2002. Searches of Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were performed. Recommendations For multiple myeloma patients who have, on plain radiograph(s) or imaging studies, lytic destruction of bone or spine compression fracture from osteopenia, intravenous pamidronate 90 mg delivered over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg delivered over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Clodronate is an alternative bisphosphonate approved worldwide, except in the United States, for oral or intravenous administration. New dosing guidelines for patients with pre-existing renal impairment were added to the zoledronic acid package insert. Although no similar dosing guidelines are available for pamidronate, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with pre-existing renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The Update Committee suggests that bisphosphonate treatment continue for a period of 2 years. At 2 years, physicians should seriously consider discontinuing bisphosphonates in patients with responsive or stable disease, but further use is at the discretion of the treating physician. The Update Committee also discusses measures regarding ONJ.