Dignam, James J.

1 Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) with temozolomide (TMZ/RT→TMZ) is the standard of care for newly diagnosed GBM. This trial determined if the addition of Bev to standard CRT improves survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed GBM. Methods: This phase III trial was conducted by the RTOG, NCCTG, and ECOG. Neurologically stable pts > 18 yrs with KPS ≥ 60, and > 1cm3 tumor tissue block, were randomized to Arm 1: standard CRT + placebo or Arm 2: standard CRT plus Bev (10 mg/kg iv q 2wks). Experimental treatment began at wk 4 of radiation then thru 6-12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. Protocol specified co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS, with significance levels of .023 and .002, respectively. At progression, treatment was unblinded and pts allowed to crossover or continue Bev. Symptom, QOL and neurocognitive (NCF) testing was performed in the majority of pts. Secondary analyses evaluated impact of MGMT methylation (meth) and prognostic 9 gene signature status. Results: From 978 registered pts, 637 were randomized. Inadequate tissue (n=105) and blood on imaging (n=40) were key reasons for non-randomization. No difference was found between arms for OS (median 16.1 vs. 15.7 mo, p = 0.11). PFS was extended for Arm 2 (7.3 vs. 10.7 mo, p = 0.004). Pts with MGMT meth had superior OS (23.2 vs. 14.3 mo, p < 0.001) and PFS (14.1 vs. 8.2 mo, p < 0.001). Neither the 9 gene signature nor MGMT predicted selective benefit for Bev treatment, but best prognosis pts (MGMT meth, favorable 9-gene), had a worse survival trend with Bev (15.7 vs 25 mo p = 0.08). To date, 128 pts were unblinded on Arm 1 (salvage Bev in 86) and 87 pts on Arm 2 (continued Bev in 39). Increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen with Bev, mostly neutropenia, hypertension, and DVT/PE. Conclusions: The addition of Bev for newly diagnosed GBM did not improve OS, did improve PFS but did not reach the significance criterion. MGMT and 9 gene profile did not identify selective benefit, but risk subset results suggested strongly against the upfront use of Bev in the best prognosis pts. Full interpretation of the PFS results incorporating symptom burden, QOL, and NCF is ongoing. Support: NCI U10 CA 21661, U10 CA37422, and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

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.

PurposeTo determine whether prolonged androgen suppression (AS) duration before radiotherapy improves survival and disease control in prostate cancer.Patients and MethodsOne thousand five hundred seventy-nine men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of concurrent AS (16 weeks total) or to 28 weeks of AS followed by radiotherapy with an additional 8 weeks of AS (36 weeks total). The trial sought primarily to detect a 33% reduction in the hazard of prostate cancer death in the 28-week assignment. Time-to-event end points are reported for up to 10 years of follow-up.ResultsThere were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics of 1,489 eligible patients with follow-up. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 95% (95% CI, 93.3% to 97.0%) and 96% (95% CI, 94.6% to 98.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .45), respectively, and 10-year overall survival rates were 66% (95% CI, 62.0% to 69.9%) and 67% (95% CI, 63.0% to 70.8%; HR, 0.95; P = .62), respectively. For the 8- and 28-week assignments, 10-year cumulative incidences of locoregional progression were 6% (95% CI, 4.3% to 8.0%) and 4% (95% CI, 2.5% to 5.7%; HR, 0.65; P = .07), respectively; 10-year distant metastasis cumulative incidences were 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.7%) and 6% (95% CI, 4.0% to 7.6%; HR, 1.07; P = .80), respectively; and 10-year prostate-specific antigen–based recurrence cumulative incidences were 27% (95% CI, 23.1% to 29.8%) and 27% (95% CI, 23.4% to 30.3%; HR, 0.97; P = .77), respectively.ConclusionExtending AS duration from 8 weeks to 28 weeks before radiotherapy did not improve outcomes. A lower than expected prostate cancer death rate reduced ability to detect a between-group difference in disease-specific survival. The schedule of 8 weeks of AS before radiotherapy plus 8 weeks of AS during radiotherapy remains a standard of care in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.