Buyse, Marc

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

4023 Background: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) remains a deadly disease with very limited treatment options. FFX is a standard first-line therapy for mPC with a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.1 months. CPI-613 is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic cycle preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells. In a phase I study, CPI-613+mFFX was safe and exhibited promising signal of efficacy. Methods: A global, randomized phase 3 trial was conducted across 73 sites to investigate the efficacy and safety of CPI-613 in combination with mFFX compared to standard dose FFX in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment was administered in 2-weekly cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. In the experimental arm, CPI-613 at 500 mg/m2 was given intravenously on days 1 and 3. The doses of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in the experimental arm were 65 mg/m2, 140 mg/m2, and 2,400 mg/2, respectively. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics, patient reported outcomes and safety. Results: 528 patients were randomly assigned (266 in test and 262 in control arm). There were 362 deaths, with a mOS of 11.1 months for CPI-613+mFFX vs. 11.7 months for FFX [hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18; P = 0.655]; mPFS was 7.8 months vs. 8.0 months respectively [HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29; P = 0.94]; ORR was 39% in the test arm vs. 34% in the control arm [ORR ratio, 1.23 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.75)]. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with ≥ 10% frequency in CPI-613 plus mFFX vs. FFX arm were diarrhea (11.2% vs. 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% vs. 14.9%), anemia (13.9% vs. 13.6%), neutropenia (11.2% vs. 14.0%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% vs. 13.6%) and fatigue (10.8% vs. 11.5%). Conclusions: The addition of CPI-613 to mFFX failed to show significant improvements of ORR, PFS or OS. The mFFX in the test arm that had the lowest prospectively tested doses of FFX was without compromise on PFS or OS and may be considered as a reference for future FFX administration. Clinical trial information: NCT03504423.

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.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

Abstract Background: Sapacitabine is a novel oral nucleoside analogue with a unique ability to induce single-strand DNA breaks after incorporation into DNA, leading to production of double-strand DNA breaks and/or G2 cell cycle arrest. In AML cell lines, the active metabolite of sapacitabine, CNDAC, is synergistic with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) particularly when treated with HMAs first. In a pilot study, there were 6 CRs and 2 PRs in 25 patients treated with sapacitabine in alternating cycles with decitabine. This global randomized phase 3 study evaluated the survival benefit of this treatment strategy vs. decitabine monotherapy. Methods: Decitabine 20 mg/m2 was administered intravenously daily x 5 days of a 4-week cycle (for the control arm and odd cycles of the study arm) alternating with sapacitabine 300 mg p.o. b.i.d. x 3 days/week x 2 weeks of a 4-week cycle (even cycles of the study arm). The safety of these doses was further evaluated in the lead-in phase of the phase 3 study to confirm the findings from the pilot study. Eligible patients were ≥70 years with untreated AML and unsuitable for or unwilling to receive standard induction chemotherapy. Patients who had received HMAs for prior MDS or MPD were excluded. Results: For 482 patients randomized to receive decitabine/sapacitabine (n=241) vs. decitabine only (n=241), randomization was stratified by the presence of antecedent MDS or MPN, peripheral white blood cell count (WBC &lt;10,000 vs. ≥10,000) and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs. &lt; 50%). Median age was 77 years (range 70-90), and 317 patients had de novo AML (66%), 165 secondary AML (34%). WBC was ≥10,000 in 161 patients (33%) and &gt;40,000 in 59 patients (12%); 194 patients (40%) had unfavorable cytogenetic risk by SWOG criteria. Disease characteristics were well balanced in both arms. In total, 13.7% of patients achieved CR, more on the study arm vs. control (16.6% vs. 10.8%). A total of 37.3% treated patients received ≥5 cycles of treatment, similar on both arms, as were 30- and 60-day death rates. Median overall survival was 5.9 months on the study arm vs. 5.7 months on control arm, which did not reach a statistically significant difference. In the subgroup of patients with &lt;10,000 WBC (n=321), median overall survival was higher on the study arm vs. control arm (8.0 months vs. 5.8 months), as was CR rate (21.5% vs. 8.6%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of causality) that occurred in &gt;10% patients were thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and disease progression. Conclusion: The regimen of sapacitabine administered in alternating cycles with decitabine was active and well tolerated but it did not significantly improve overall survival as compared to decitabine monotherapy. Further analyses are being conducted to characterize the subgroups of patients who appeared to have benefited from this treatment regimen and the potential cost savings associated with the use of an oral drug. Disclosures Kantarjian: Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Goldberg: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; COTA: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Strickland: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Rubenstein: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Schiller: bluebird bio: Research Funding; mateon therapeutics: Research Funding. Gaidano: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montesinos: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri: Shire: Research Funding; Erytech: Research Funding. Subramanian: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Biocept: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Buyse: IDDI: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiao: Cyclacel LTD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

4011 Background: The ACCENT group previously validated DFS with 3 years (yr) median follow-up (f-up) based on 20,898 pts from trials testing 5-FU based regimens (rx) (3yr DFS) as an endpoint to predict overall survival with 5 yr median f-up (5yr OS) (Sargent, JCO 2005). ACCENT further proposed (1) 2yr DFS predicts 5yr OS, (2) a stronger relationship between DFS and OS in stage III pts (Sargent JCO 2007) and (3) 6 or 7 yrs are necessary to demonstrate DFS and OS association in future trials due to extended survival following recurrence (de Gramont ASCO 2008). The relationship between endpoints in more recent trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan is unknown. Methods: Concordance between 2 and 3yr DFS, and 5 and 6yr OS was examined in 6 randomized phase III trials from 1997–2002. Individual data for 12,676 pts was analyzed; 2 trials tested oxaliplatin, 2 irinotecan, and 2 oral rx vs 5-FU/LV control. Association between DFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) via weighted least squares (WLS), and concordance between predicted and actual within-trial HRs, were calculated overall and for stage III pts. Results: Overall association between 3 yr DFS and 5 yr OS HRs was reduced compared to the prior ACCENT analysis (Table). In stage III pts, the association between DFS and OS HRs remained strong. Observed 5 and 6yr OS HRs were predicted accurately by 2yr DFS overall and in stage III pts (within 95% prediction limits in all trials). In all pts, DFS HRs were more highly associated with 6 vs 5yr OS HRs. Conclusions: In recent trials in stage III pts, DFS HRs based on 2yr median f-up are highly predictive of 5 and 6yr OS HRs. In all pts the association between DFS and OS HRs is stronger for 6yr OS, but 7yr follow-up may be required. These data support 3yr DFS as a primary endpoint for modern stage III trials, and indicate that 2yr DFS would also be an appropriate primary endpoint. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

4090 Background: EGFR mAbs have become incorporated into clinical practice for the management of mCRC over the last decade. KRAS and NRAS mutations are used as predictive biomarkers and BRAF V600E mutations are associated with an adverse prognosis. The observed TE within biomarker subpopulations has varied between studies. Methods: IPD from randomized trials with head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or BSC) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy (first, second and later), were pooled. Biomarker subpopulations are defined in the table. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups by Cox model, stratified by studies and adjusted by age, gender, and performance status. TEs were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Within each biomarker subgroup, EGFR mAb efficacy was explored according to multiple exploratory factors, including line of therapy, type of backbone chemo, gender, sidedness and site of metastasis. Interaction tests were performed. P-values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: 5729 pts from 8 studies with data available for ≥ 1 biomarker were analysed. PFS benefits (median 9.2 mos in EGFR mAbs, 8.0 mos in no EGFR mAbs) were confirmed in triple-WT pts, but not for OS (refer to table). No OS/PFS benefits were observed for pts with any of the MT tumors. Exploratory analyses showed a potential detrimental TE of EGFR mAbs in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastasis (OS: HRadj 1.22, p = .003, pinteraction .0056; PFS: HRadj 1.24, p = .0009, pinteraction .0008). These results were confirmed within the subgroup of pts with all 3 biomarkers available. Conclusions: This is the largest IPD analysis to explore the predictive value of RAS/BRAF biomarkers in mCRC. Our findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of efficacy of EGFR mAbs in KRAS, BRAF and/or NRAS MT mCRC. EGFR mAbs might have a detrimental effect in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastases. [Table: see text]

3533 Background: PFS has previously been established as a surrogate for OS based on IPD from first-line mCRC trials conducted before 1999. As mCRC treatment (trt) has advanced in the last decade and OS has increased from 1 to 2 years, this surrogacy required re-examination. Methods: IPD from 16,762 pts, median age 62, 62% male, 53% ECOG PS 0 were available from 22 1st line mCRC studies conducted from 1997-2006; 12 tested targeted (anti-angiogenic and/or anti-EGFR) regimens. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated at patient-, trt-arm-, and trial-levels using correlation (corr.) coefficients and R2 (closer to 1 the better) from weighted least square (WLS) regression of arm-specific survival rates and trial-specific hazard ratios (HRs), estimated using Cox and Copula bivariate models. The concordance of significance (CoS) of the treatment effects (TEs) on both endpoints was calculated. Results: 44% pts received a targeted regimen. Median PFS was 8 and OS was18 months. The corr. between PFS and OS was modest at all three levels with low CoS in TE comparisons (see Table). Analyses limited to trials testing targeted trts, non-strategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy. Conclusions: In modern mCRC trials, where survival post-first progression exceeds time to first progression, PFS TEs do not reliably predict TEs on OS. Nonetheless, until alternative endpoints of clinical benefit can be validated, PFS remains a relevant primary endpoint for 1st line mCRC trials, as our data demonstrate that the ability for any agent to produce an OS benefit from a single line of therapy is challenging. [Table: see text]