Ludmir, Ethan B

PURPOSE We tested the hypothesis that adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS EXTEND was a multicenter randomized phase II trial. Patients with 1-5 metastases were randomly assigned to MDT + SOC versus SOC in one of the six baskets (breast, pancreas, kidney, two prostate baskets, and an other basket) with basket-specific stratification and powering. PFS, the primary end point, was prespecified in the per-protocol set within each basket, across all baskets, and across all baskets excluding the prostate baskets. Exploratory end points included circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and immune profiling. RESULTS From 2018 through 2023, 521 patients were screened, 350 were randomly assigned, and 334 were analyzed per protocol (MDT + SOC, n = 166; SOC, n = 168). Radiotherapy was used as MDT for 98% of metastases (370/379). Overall, after a median follow-up of 53 months, PFS was improved with MDT + SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72], P < .001). Similarly, PFS was improved when excluding the prostate baskets (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.89]). Within each basket, PFS superiority was identified for the pancreas, prostate, and other baskets, whereas the breast and kidney baskets were inconclusive. At enrollment, detectable ctDNA correlated with shorter PFS and survival; by contrast, ctDNA clearance 3 months postenrollment correlated with improved survival. MDT + SOC-induced systemic immune activation was most pronounced among baskets demonstrating PFS superiority. CONCLUSION The phase II EXTEND trial supports the addition of MDT to SOC for oligometastatic disease. Histology-specific efficacy signals were identified for phase III testing. Translational insights suggest the potential for optimizing the definition of oligometastasis using ctDNA and point to systemic immune responses as a possible mechanism of benefit from MDT.

PURPOSE Most oncology trials define superiority according to dichotomized P value thresholds, which are frequently misinterpreted. Posterior probability, however, directly estimates the probability of the hypothesis at hand. Here, we reanalyze a large collection of modern phase III trials and benchmark posterior probability versus the standard trial interpretation based on statistical significance. METHODS Outcomes from 194,129 patients were manually reconstructed from the primary end points of 230 phase III, superiority-design oncology trials. Posterior probabilities of treatment effect were then calculated across multiple priors and several effect sizes of clinical relevance, including minimum clinically important difference (MCID) defined as hazard ratio (HR) < 0.8 per ASCO criteria or HR < 0.64 per European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) criteria. RESULTS All trials interpreted as superior using P value thresholds had probabilities >90% for achieving at least marginal benefits (HR < 1). However, only 62% of positive trials (74/120) had >90% probabilities of achieving the ASCO MCID (HR < 0.8), even under an enthusiastic prior, including 70% of trials (57/82) leading to regulatory approval. Only 30% of positive trials (36/120) had >90% probability of achieving the ESMO MCID (HR < 0.64). Conversely, 24% of trials (26/110) interpreted as not superior had >90% probability of achieving marginal benefits (HR < 1), even under a skeptical prior. CONCLUSION Bayesian models, although often in agreement with statistical significance thresholds, add considerable unique interpretative value for a subset of phase III oncology trials. Posterior probability may provide a solution for overcoming the discrepancies between refuting the null hypothesis and detecting clinically relevant effects.

Abstract Background In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), anticipating control arm outcomes is important for power calculations and enrollment goals. Unexpected overperformance of the control arm can underpower RCTs. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of control arm overperformance in phase 3 oncology RCTs. Methods The authors conducted a meta‐epidemiological study of two‐arm, superiority‐design, phase 3 oncology RCTs. They reviewed articles/publications and protocols for power calculations, justification, and outcomes. Control arm performance was measured as the ratio of observed control arm outcomes relative to pretrial estimates, and overperformance was defined as a 10% improvement. Results In total, 385 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in 134 RCTs (35%). Of 311 RCTs (81%) that provided a pretrial estimate for control arm performance, 138 RCTs (44%) cited a justification for the estimate. Greater than expected control arm performance was associated with lower odds of meeting the primary end point (adjusted odds ratio, 0.989; 95% confidence interval, 0.981–0.998; p = 0.015). Of 244 RCTs that were evaluable for control arm performance, 104 (43%) exhibited overperformance. RCTs that used OS as a primary end point were more likely to exhibit control arm overperformance compared with RCTs that used other primary end points (56% vs. 33%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–4.15; p = .001). Conclusions Control arm overperformance is common in phase 3 oncology RCTs and is associated with trial outcomes, suggesting an effect on study power. Because overperformance appears to be especially prevalent when OS is the primary end point, the effects of postprogression therapies on OS may be underappreciated. Alternative strategies for designing trials should be considered for reliable estimation of treatment effects.

Abstract In phase 3 oncology clinical trials, identifying and understanding potential sources of differential censoring (DC), which describes censoring imbalance between treatment arms, in overall survival (OS) endpoints is vital to reduce bias and misinterpretation of OS benefit. Among 322 trials, 34 (11%) trials exhibited DC overrepresented in the control arm (DCC). Compared to trials without DC or those with DC overrepresented in the experimental arm (DCE), trials with DCC showed higher rates of OS benefit (56% vs. 32%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.04 to 4.90; P = .04) and were associated with patient withdrawal (median 8.0% vs. 3.8%; P = .0002), lack of double blinding (15% vs. 48%, OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.56; P = .003), and better global quality of life in the experimental arm (32% vs. 13%, OR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.26 to 7.19; P = .01). OS DCC is a prominent challenge that requires rigorous trial design and comprehensive patient and mortality follow-up to reduce bias in interpreting OS benefit.

ABSTRACT Background Blinding mitigates bias in randomized trials and may be especially crucial for surrogate endpoints, such as progression‐free survival (PFS). Here, we characterize utilization of and factors associated with blinding in Phase III oncology trials with PFS primary endpoints. Methods Two‐arm, superiority‐design trials investigating systemic therapy were identified in May 2024 from ClinicalTrials.gov with no date limitation. Trials were required to have a PFS primary endpoint. The study outcomes were the presence of double‐blind designs and blinded independent central review (BICR) for the primary endpoint. Ninety‐five percent credible intervals for binary outcomes were estimated from beta distributions, and multivariable logistic regressions explored associations with trial‐level features. Results After screening, 237 trials were included, enrolling 127,518 patients. A double‐blind design was used in 105 trials (44%, 95% CrI 38%–51%). BICR was used in 111 trials (47%, 95% CrI 41%–53%), including 39 double‐blind trials (16%, 95% CrI 12%–22%). Trials with BICR had higher odds of meeting the primary endpoint (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.06–3.18; p = 0.03). The PFS assessor identity (central vs. local) or blinding status was not reported in 50 trials (26%, 95% CrI 16%–27%). Trials that met prespecified significance criteria for PFS were more likely to report whether PFS assessors were blinded/unblinded and central/local (OR, 3.05; 95% Cl: 1.60–5.81; p = 0.0007). Conclusions Despite the importance of double blinding in combination with BICR for reducing bias, only a few trials blinded physicians, patients, and primary endpoint assessors. This meta‐epidemiological study illuminates the prevalence of potential assessment biases affecting PFS in Phase III oncology and secondarily emphasizes the need for improved methodology reporting.

AbstractBackgroundExternal‐beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed‐effects models. The inconsistency index (I2) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThere were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I2 = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I2, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I2 = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I2 = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsCompared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.

BACKGROUNDBoth intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (RT) and passively scattered proton therapy have a risk of secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN) in children. To determine the influence of RT modality on the incidence of SMN after craniospinal irradiation (CSI), the authors compared the incidence of SMN in children who had medulloblastoma treated with either photon CSI plus an intensity‐modulated RT boost (group I) or passively scattered proton CSI plus a boost (group II).METHODSFrom 1996 to 2014, 115 children with medulloblastoma (group I, n = 63; group II, n = 52) received CSI followed by a boost to the tumor bed. Most patients had standard‐risk disease (63.5%). The median follow‐up was 12.8 years for group I and 8.7 years for group II.RESULTSThe 5‐year and 10‐year overall survival (OS) rates were 88.8% and 85.1%, respectively, for standard‐risk patients and 63.1% and 57.3%, respectively, for high‐risk patients, with no OS difference by RT modality (P = .81). Six SMNs were identified (4 in group I, 2 in group II). The 5‐year and 10‐year SMN incidence rates were 1.0% and 6.9%, respectively (0.0% and 8.0%, respectively, in group I; 2.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in group II; P = .74). Two SMNs occurred in the clinical target volume in the brain, 2 occurred in the exit dose region from the photon spinal field, 1 occurred in the entrance path of a proton beam, and 1 occurred outside the radiation field. There were no reported cases of secondary leukemia.CONCLUSIONSThis analysis demonstrates no difference in OS or SMN incidence between patients in groups I and II 10 years after RT.LAY SUMMARY One hundred fifteen children with medulloblastoma received radiotherapy (RT) with either photon craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and an intensity‐modulated RT boost (group I; n = 63) or passively scattered proton CSI and a boost (group II;, n = 52). The majority of children had standard‐risk disease (63.5%). The 5‐year and 10‐year overall survival rates were 88.8% and 85.1% for standard‐risk patients, respectively, and 63.1% and 57.3% for high‐risk patients, respectively, with no difference in overall survival by RT group (P = .81). The 5‐year and 10‐year second malignant neoplasm incidence rates were 1.0% and 6.9%, respectively, with no difference in second malignant neoplasm incidence according to RT group (P = .74).

AbstractPurpose/Objective(s)Bladder and prostate are unfavorable sites for rhabdomyosarcoma (B/P‐RMS), and represent a challenging location for radiotherapy.Materials/MethodsNineteen patients with B/P‐RMS were enrolled on a prospective registry protocol (2008‐2017) and treated with chemotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT), and surgical resection (n = 8; 42%). Emphasis was given to treatment technique, disease‐related outcomes, and toxicity associated with PBT.ResultsThe majority of patients had bladder RMS (74%) of embryonal histology (95%), Group III (68%), and intermediate‐risk disease by Children's Oncology Group (COG) risk stratification (89%). Seven patients (37%) had primary tumors >5 cm in size. All patients were treated according to COG protocols. With a median follow‐up of 66.2 months, 5‐year overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) were 76%. Four patients (21%) experienced disease relapse, all presenting with local failure. The 5‐year local control (LC) rate was 76%. Tumor size predicted LC, with 5‐year LC for patients with >5 cm tumors being 43% versus 100% for those with ≤5 cm tumors (P = .006). Univariate analysis demonstrated an effect of tumor size on OS (tumor >5 cm, hazard ratio [HR] 17.7, P = .049) and PFS (HR 17.7, P = .049). Acute grade 2 toxicity was observed in two patients (11%, transient proctitis). Late grade 2+ toxicity was observed in three patients (16%; n = 1 grade 2 skeletal deformity; n = 3 transient grade 2 urinary incontinence; one patient experienced both).ConclusionsPBT for B/P‐RMS affords promising disease‐related outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile. Higher local failure rates were observed for larger tumors, supporting dose‐escalation components of ongoing RMS clinical trials.