Sargent, Daniel J.

Background. A phase II design with an option for direct assignment (stop randomization and assign all patients to experimental treatment based on interim analysis, IA) for a predefined subgroup was previously proposed. Here, we illustrate the modularity of the direct assignment option by applying it to the setting of two predefined subgroups and testing for separate subgroup main effects.Methods. We power the 2-subgroup direct assignment option design with 1 IA (DAD-1) to test for separate subgroup main effects, with assessment of power to detect an interaction in a post-hoc test. Simulations assessed the statistical properties of this design compared to the 2-subgroup balanced randomized design with 1 IA, BRD-1. Different response rates for treatment/control in subgroup 1 (0.4/0.2) and in subgroup 2 (0.1/0.2, 0.4/0.2) were considered.Results. The 2-subgroup DAD-1 preserves power and type I error rate compared to the 2-subgroup BRD-1, while exhibiting reasonable power in a post-hoc test for interaction.Conclusion. The direct assignment option is a flexible design component that can be incorporated into broader design frameworks, while maintaining desirable statistical properties, clinical appeal, and logistical simplicity.

Summary In clinical trials, an intermediate marker measured after randomization can often provide early information about the treatment effect on the final outcome of interest. We explore the use of recurrence time as an auxiliary variable for estimating the treatment effect on overall survival in phase three randomized trials of colon cancer. A multi-state model with an incorporated cured fraction for recurrence is used to jointly model time to recurrence and time to death. We explore different ways in which the information about recurrence time and the assumptions in the model can lead to improved efficiency. Estimates of overall survival and disease-free survival can be derived directly from the model with efficiency gains obtained as compared to Kaplan–Meier estimates. Alternatively, efficiency gains can be achieved by using the model in a weaker way in a multiple imputation procedure, which imputes death times for censored subjects. By using the joint model, recurrence is used as an auxiliary variable in predicting survival times. We demonstrate the potential use of the proposed methods in shortening the length of a trial and reducing sample sizes.

PurposeProgression-free survival (PFS) has previously been established as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because mCRC treatment has advanced in the last decade with extended OS, this surrogacy requires re-examination.MethodsIndividual patient data from 16,762 patients were available from 22 first-line mCRC studies conducted from 1997 to 2006; 12 of those studies tested antiangiogenic and/or anti–epidermal growth factor receptor agents. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated by using R2statistics (the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the correlation) from weighted least squares regression of trial-specific hazard ratios estimated by using Cox and Copula models.ResultsForty-four percent of patients received a regimen that included biologic agents. Median first-line PFS was 8.3 months, and median OS was 18.2 months. The correlation between PFS and OS was modest (R2, 0.45 to 0.69). Analyses limited to trials that tested treatments with biologic agents, nonstrategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy.ConclusionIn modern mCRC trials, in which survival after the first progression exceeds time to first progression, a positive but modest correlation was observed between OS and PFS at both the patient and trial levels. This finding demonstrates the substantial variability in OS introduced by the number of lines of therapy and types of effective subsequent treatments and the associated challenge to the use of OS as an end point to assess the benefit attributable to a single line of therapy. PFS remains an appropriate primary end point for first-line mCRC trials to detect the direct treatment effect of new agents.

Abstract Purpose: Clinical trials are expensive and lengthy, where success of a given trial depends on observing a prospectively defined number of patient events required to answer the clinical question. The point at which this analysis time occurs depends on both patient accrual and primary event rates, which typically vary throughout the trial's duration. We demonstrate real-time analysis date projections using data from a collection of six clinical trials that are part of the IDEA collaboration, an international preplanned pooling of data from six trials testing the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer, and we additionally consider the hypothetical impact of one trial's early termination of follow-up. Patients and Methods: In the absence of outcome data from IDEA, monthly accrual rates for each of the six IDEA trials were used to project subsequent trial-specific accrual, while historical data from similar Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) Group trials were used to construct a parametric model for IDEA's primary endpoint, disease-free survival, under the same treatment regimen. With this information and using the planned total accrual from each IDEA trial protocol, individual patient accrual and event dates were simulated and the overall IDEA interim and final analysis times projected. Projections were then compared with actual (previously undisclosed) trial-specific event totals at a recent census time for validation. The change in projected final analysis date assuming early termination of follow-up for one IDEA trial was also calculated. Results: Trial-specific predicted event totals were close to the actual number of events per trial for the recent census date at which the number of events per trial was known, with the overall IDEA projected number of events only off by eight patients. Potential early termination of follow-up by one IDEA trial was estimated to postpone the overall IDEA final analysis date by 9 months. Conclusions: Real-time projection of the final analysis time during a trial, or the overall analysis time during a trial collaborative such as IDEA, has practical implications for trial feasibility when these projections are translated into additional time and resources required.

Purpose The optimal end point for randomized phase II trials of anticancer therapies remains controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from N9741, a randomized phase III trial of chemotherapy regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer, and compared the power of various end points to detect the superior therapy (FOLFOX [infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin] had longer overall survival than both IROX [irinotecan plus oxaliplatin] and IFL [irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin]). Methods Tumor measurements and progression-free survival (PFS) data were obtained for 1,471 patients; 1,002 had consistently measured tumors and were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate two-arm, randomized phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one sided) and 20 to 80 patients per arm. End points included log ratio of tumor size at 6, 12, and 18 weeks relative to baseline; time to tumor growth (TTG), estimated using a nonlinear mixed-effects model; and PFS. Arms were compared using rank sum tests for log ratio and TTG and a log-rank test for PFS. Results For FOLFOX versus IFL, TTG and PFS had similar power, with both exceeding the power of log ratio at 18 weeks; for FOLFOX versus IROX, TTG and log ratio at 18 weeks had similar power, with both exceeding the power of PFS. The best end points exhibited > 80% power with 60 to 80 patients per arm. Conclusion TTG is a powerful end point for randomized phase II trials of cytotoxic therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer; it was either comparable or superior to PFS and log ratio at 18 weeks. Additional studies will be needed to clarify the potential of TTG as a phase II end point.

Abstract Purpose: To establish the concept of minimum clinically meaningful outcome (mCMO) of treatment in advanced solid tumors, to establish its threshold and evaluate how many superiority trials of new antineoplastic agents pass this threshold. Experimental Design: We chose overall survival as the primary indicator of patient benefit. Four conceptually different types of treatment effect can be identified in OS curves: HR, gains in median OS, proportional, and absolute increases at long-term OS. We postulated threshold levels for these four parameters defining the mCMO and set the bar at three different levels of required benefit: high, medium, and low. The postulated values were then studied by comparing our thresholds with the actual results of the pivotal superiority phase III trials on new drugs reporting on mature OS data. Results: Forty-three trials on 35,419 patients in 12 cancer types on 23 novel agents met these criteria. Only two trials reached the postulated “high” thresholds for HR and median OS. The number of “positive trials” increased to eight and 15 when the bar was lowered to the “medium” and “low” levels, respectively. The same analysis was done for proportional and absolute increases in long-term OS. No trial satisfied the criteria for long-term benefit, whereas only two and nine trials satisfied both parameters for the “medium and low” required benefit levels, respectively. Conclusions: All four OS-related parameters contribute to define the mCMO. If the bar for the mCMO is raised too much, positive trials are exceptional. Clin Cancer Res; 21(5); 1036–43. ©2014 AACR. See related commentary by Schilsky, p. 947

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose This study addressed whether age is prognostic for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 20,023 patients from 24 first-line clinical trials in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Primary age effects and interactions with age, sex, performance status (PS), and metastatic site were modeled using Cox proportional hazards stratified by treatment arm within study. Results Of total patients, 3,051 (15%) were age ≤ 50 years. Age was prognostic for both OS (P < .001) and PFS (P < .001), with U-shaped risk (ie, highest risk was evident in youngest and oldest patients). Relative to patients of middle age, the youngest patients experienced 19% (95% CI, 7% to 33%) increased risk of death and 22% (95% CI, 10% to 35%) increased risk of progression. The oldest patients experienced 42% (95% CI, 31% to 54%) increased risk of death and 15% (95% CI, 7% to 24%) increased risk of progression or death. This relationship was more pronounced in the first year of follow-up. Age remained marginally significant for OS (P = .08) when adjusted for PS, sex, and presence of liver, lung, or peritoneal metastases, and age was significant in an adjusted model for PFS (P = .005). The age effect did not differ by site of metastatic disease, year of enrollment, type of therapy received, or biomarker mutational status. Conclusion Younger and older age are associated with poorer OS and PFS among treated patients with mCRC. Younger and older patients may represent higher-risk populations, and additional studies are warranted.

Abstract Purpose: Recurrence risk assessment to make treatment decisions for early-stage colon cancer patients is a major unmet medical need. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the clinical utility of guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) mRNA levels in lymph nodes on colon cancer recurrence. Methods: The proportion of lymph nodes with GCC-positive mRNA (LNR) was evaluated in 463 untreated T3N0 patients, blinded to clinical outcomes. One site's (n = 97) tissue grossing method precluded appropriate lymph node assessment resulting in post hoc exclusion. Cox regression models tested the relationship between GCC and the primary endpoint of time to recurrence. Assay methods, primary analyses, and cut points were all prespecified. Results: Final dataset contained 366 patients, 38 (10%) of whom had recurrence. Presence of four or more GCC-positive lymph nodes was significantly associated with risk of recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–5.69, P = 0.035], whereas binary GCC LNR risk class (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 0.99–3.54, P = 0.054) and mismatch repair (MMR) status (HR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.36–1.62, P = 0.49) were not. In a secondary analysis using a 3-level GCC LNR risk group classification of high (LNR &gt; 0.20), intermediate (0.10 &lt; LNR ≤ 0.20), and low (LNR ≤ 0.10), high-risk patients had a 2.5 times higher recurrence risk compared with low-risk patients (HR = 2.53, 95% CI, 1.24–5.17, P = 0.011). Conclusions: GCC status is a promising prognostic factor independent of traditional histopathology risk factors in a contemporary population of patients with stage IIa colon cancer not treated with adjuvant therapy, but GCC determination must be performed with methodology adapted to the tissue procurement and fixation technique. Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4361–9. ©2014 AACR.

AbstractPurpose: A let-7 microRNA-complementary site (LCS6) polymorphism in the 3′ untranslated region of the KRAS gene has been shown to disrupt let-7 binding and upregulate KRAS expression. We evaluated the LCS6 genotype and its association with KRAS mutation status, clinicopathologic features, and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage III colon cancer who enrolled in a phase III clinical trial (NCCTG N0147).Experimental Design: The LCS6 genotype was assayed by real-time PCR in DNA extracted from whole blood (n = 2,834) and compared with paired tumor tissue (n = 977). χ2 and two-sample t tests were used to compare baseline factors and KRAS mutation status between patients defined by LCS6 variant status. Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox models assessed associations between LCS6 status and DFS, respectively.Results: We identified 432 (15.2%) blood samples and 143 (14.6%) tumor samples heterozygous or homozygous for the LCS6 G-allele, and 2,402 of 2,834 (84.8%) blood samples and 834 of 977 (85.4%) tumor samples homozygous for the LCS6 T-allele. Genotype results were highly concordant (99.8%) in cases with paired blood and tumor tissue (n = 977). G-allele carriers were significantly more frequent in Caucasians versus other races (χ2 test, P &lt; 0.0001). The LCS6 genotype was not associated with KRAS mutation status, clinicopathologic features (all P &gt; 0.2), or DFS (log-rank P = 0.49; HR, 0.929; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–1.14), even after combining LCS6 genotype with KRAS mutation status.Conclusions: In the largest association study investigating the LCS6 polymorphism in colon cancers, the germline LCS6 genotype was not associated with KRAS mutation status or with clinical outcome in patients with stage III tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 20(12); 3319–27. ©2014 AACR.