Back to Authors

Michiels, Stefan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6963-2968

Mayo Clinic

Inserm

Citations 13

New insights into the evaluation of randomized controlled trials for rare diseases over a long‐term research horizon: a simulation study
Bayar, Mohamed Amine , Michiels, Stefan , Deley, Marie‐Cécile Le , Sargent, Daniel J , Teuff, Gwénaël Le , Sargent, Daniel J.

Statistics in Medicine | March 31, 2016 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 3245-3258

10.1002/sim.6942 Get It

Large sample sizes are required in randomized clinical trials designed to meet typical one‐sided 2.5% α‐level and 80% power. This may not be achievable when the disease is rare. We simulated a series of two‐arm superiority trials over a 15‐year period. The design parameters examined were the α‐level and the number of trials conducted over the 15‐year period (thus, trial sample size). Different disease severities and accrual rates were considered. The future treatment effect was characterized by its associated hazard rate; different hypotheses of how treatments improve over time were considered. We defined the total survival benefit as the relative difference of the hazard rates at year 15 versus year 0. The optimal design was defined by maximizing the expected total survival benefit, provided that the risk of selecting at year 15 a treatment inferior to the initial control treatment remains below 1%. Compared with two larger trials with typical one‐sided 2.5% α‐level, performing a series of small trials with relaxed α‐levels leads on average to larger survival benefits over a 15‐year research horizon, but also to higher risk of selecting a worse treatment at the end of the research period. Under reasonably optimistic assumptions regarding the future treatment effects, optimal designs outperform traditional ones when the disease is severe (baseline median survival ≤ 1 year) and the accrual is ≥100 patients per year, whereas no major improvement is observed in diseases with better prognosis. Trial designs aiming to maximize survival gain over a long research horizon across a series of trials are worth discussing in the context of rare diseases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P4-07-14: Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) Detection and HER2 Profiling by CellSearch® in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An International Ring Study To Assess Inter-Reader Variability.
Pierga, J-Y, Campion, Michael J., Payne, Rachel, Rack, Brigitte , Mavroudis, D., Riethdorf, Sabine , Rothé, Françoise , Bessi, Silvia , Aura, CM, Borgen, Elin , Terstappen, LWMM, Piccart, Martine , Michiels, Stefan , Ignatiadis, Michail , Fehm, Tanja , Sandri, Maria Teresa , Kraan, Jaco , Terstappen, LWMM, Sotiriou, Christos P. , Pantel, Klaus

Cancer Research | June 27, 2012 | Volume: 71 | Issue: 24_Supplement | Pages: P4-07-14-P4-07-14

10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p4-07-14 Get It

Abstract Background: Preliminary results from the Success and Remagus trials showed that CTC detection by CellSearch® has adverse prognostic value in non-metastatic breast cancer. Moreover, several investigators have characterized HER2 expression on CTCs in early breast cancer. Since the majority of CTC-positive women with non-metastatic breast cancer have only 1 CTC detected / blood volume analyzed, we wanted to evaluate the inter-reader variability in this setting. This is a crucial step before moving forward with multi-lab/multi-center prospective testing of the clinical utility of the CellSearch® technology in non-metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Five galleries of CellSearch® images from 3 European and one US institution (a total of 307 images) were mailed to 22 independent readers from 14 European and US academic laboratories and 8 readers from two CellSearch® Veridex laboratories in a blinded fashion. These images came mainly from studies on CTC and/or HER2−positive CTC detection in breast cancer and included healthy women (negative controls), women with metastatic (positive controls) and non-metastatic disease (Pierga et al SABCS 2010, Pierga et al ASCO 2011, Riedthorf et al CCR 2010, Ignatiadis et al PLoS ONE 2011). Each reader reported the images as either CTC-negative or CTC-positive/HER2−negative or CTC-positive/HER2−positive. Kappa statistics were used to assess inter-reader agreement. The 8 Veridex readers were summarized by a majority voting system to derive a gold standard in order to compare each independent reader using discordance rates. Results: Kappa statistics showed moderate to good agreement between independent readers depending on the gallery evaluated (gallery 1 K: 0.55, gallery 2 K:0.57 gallery 3 K:0.64, gallery 4 K:0.72, gallery 5 K:0.85). These differences were attributed to differences in scoring difficulty of each gallery. Discordances in CTC-positive vs CTC-negative events between each reader and the gold standard ranged from 2.3%-31.3% with 7 readers showing discordance rates <5%, 11 readers between 5–10%, 10 readers between 10–14% and only 2 readers showing discordance rates >14% as compared to the gold standard (median discordance rate: 9.3%). Image analysis showed that investigators with high discordance rates compared to the Veridex gold standard were not always taking into account “morphological characteristics” for defining an event as CTC-positive. Discordant results between readers were mainly due to discordance in CTC definition and to a lesser extent in the definition of HER2−positivity. Indeed, discordances in assigning a CTC-positive event as either HER2−negative or HER2−positive ranged from 0.3−13.7% with 19 readers showing discordance rates <5%, 7 readers between 5–10% and 4 readers with discordance rates >10% (median discordance rate: 3.9%). Conclusion: In non-metastatic breast cancer, we observed low discordance between most independent readers and the gold standard for defining a CellSearch® event as CTC with very few readers showing high discordance rates. Concordance can be improved through appropriate training and the use of all the tools provided by the CellSearch® system for image interpretation. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-14.
Progression-Free Survival Is a Surrogate for Survival in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Burzykowski, Tomasz , Carroll, Kevin , Michiels, Stefan , Sargent, Daniel J. , Miller, Langdon L., Elfring, Gary, Pignon, Jean‐Pierre , Piedbois, Pascal, Buyse, Marc , Sargent, Daniel J , Burzykowski, Tomasz

Journal of Clinical Oncology | November 16, 2007 | Volume: 25 | Issue: 33 | Pages: 5218-5224

10.1200/jco.2007.11.8836 Get It

Purpose The traditional end point for assessing efficacy of first-line chemotherapies for advanced cancer is overall survival (OS), but this end point requires prolonged follow-up and is potentially confounded by the effects of second-line therapies. We investigated whether progression-free survival (PFS) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS in advanced colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Individual patient data were available from 10 historical trials comparing fluouracil (FU) + leucovorin with either FU alone (1,744 patients) or with raltitrexed (1,345 patients) and from three validation trials comparing FU + leucovorin with or without irinotecan or oxaliplatin (1,263 patients). Correlation coefficients were estimated in historical trials between the end points of PFS and OS, and between the treatment effects on these end points. Treatment effects on OS were predicted in validation trials, and compared with the observed effects. Results In historical trials, 1,760 patients (57%) had progressed or died at 6 months, and 1,622 (52%) had died at 12 months. The rank correlation coefficient between PFS and OS was equal to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.83). The correlation coefficient between treatment effects on PFS and on OS ranged from 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04) when all trials were considered to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.04) after exclusion of one highly influential trial. In the validation trials, the observed OS hazard ratios were within the 95% prediction intervals. A hazard ratio of 0.77 or lower in terms of PFS would predict a benefit in terms of OS. Conclusion PFS is an acceptable surrogate for OS in advanced colorectal cancer.