Burzykowski, Tomasz

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

666 Background: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS; ≥20% decrease from baseline) and early objective tumor response (EOTR; CR/PR by RECIST) are associated with improved PFS/OS to a similar extent than best overall response (BOR), confirmed response (ConfR) and non-progression rate (NPR; CR/PR/SD by RECIST) at the individual level in first-line mCRC (ASCO 2014, abstr 3538/3578). We assessed these RBEs at the trial level. Methods: Data were available on 12,185 pts enrolled in a total of 17 randomized trials of chemotherapy (CT) alone or with targeted agents (TAs). ETS, EOTR and NPR were assessed at 6/8/9 and 12 weeks (wks), whereas BOR and ConfR were ascertained within 26 wks from randomization. Association between treatment effects on RBEs and on PFS/OS was assessed by coefficients of determination (R2, adjusted for estimation errors) using a copula model). Results: None of the RBEs had consistently strong correlations with PFS or OS (Table). The number of trials was insufficient to obtain reliable estimates for antiangiogenics and anti-EGFR separately. Conclusions: Despite their individual-level associations with PFS and OS, RBEs do not appear to be surrogate endpoints in first-line mCRC, given their poor predictive ability. [Table: see text]

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.