Thomas J Herzog1, Deborah K Armstrong2, Mark F Brady3, Robert L Coleman4, Mark H Einstein5, Bradley J Monk6, Robert S Mannel7, J Tate Thigpen8, Sharee A Umpierre9, Jeannine A Villella10, Ronald D Alvarez11. 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. John Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 6. Creighton University School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 7. University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 8. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA. 9. UPR Medical Sciences, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 10. Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA. 11. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer. METHODS: A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts. RESULTS: Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer. METHODS: A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts. RESULTS: Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.
Authors: Anne M van Altena; Henrike E Karim-Kos; Esther de Vries; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Leon F A G Massuger; Lambertus A Kiemeney Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Timothy J Perren; Ann Marie Swart; Jacobus Pfisterer; Jonathan A Ledermann; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Gunnar Kristensen; Mark S Carey; Philip Beale; Andrés Cervantes; Christian Kurzeder; Andreas du Bois; Jalid Sehouli; Rainer Kimmig; Anne Stähle; Fiona Collinson; Sharadah Essapen; Charlie Gourley; Alain Lortholary; Frédéric Selle; Mansoor R Mirza; Arto Leminen; Marie Plante; Dan Stark; Wendi Qian; Mahesh K B Parmar; Amit M Oza Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert A Burger; Mark F Brady; Michael A Bookman; Gini F Fleming; Bradley J Monk; Helen Huang; Robert S Mannel; Howard D Homesley; Jeffrey Fowler; Benjamin E Greer; Matthew Boente; Michael J Birrer; Sharon X Liang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lara Traeger; Joseph A Greer; Carlos Fernandez-Robles; Jennifer S Temel; William F Pirl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Y Zang; P Harter; D S Chi; J Sehouli; R Jiang; C G Tropé; A Ayhan; G Cormio; Y Xing; K M Wollschlaeger; E I Braicu; C A Rabbitt; H Oksefjell; W J Tian; C Fotopoulou; J Pfisterer; A du Bois; J S Berek Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Thomas J Herzog; Ronald D Alvarez; Angeles Secord; Barbara A Goff; Robert S Mannel; Bradley J Monk; Robert L Coleman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michael Friedlander; Val Gebski; Emma Gibbs; Lucy Davies; Ralph Bloomfield; Felix Hilpert; Lari B Wenzel; Daniel Eek; Manuel Rodrigues; Andrew Clamp; Richard T Penson; Diane Provencher; Jacob Korach; Tomasz Huzarski; Laura Vidal; Vanda Salutari; Clare Scott; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Kenji Tamura; David Espinoza; Florence Joly; Eric Pujade-Lauraine Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jonathan A Ledermann; Amit M Oza; Domenica Lorusso; Carol Aghajanian; Ana Oaknin; Andrew Dean; Nicoletta Colombo; Johanne I Weberpals; Andrew R Clamp; Giovanni Scambia; Alexandra Leary; Robert W Holloway; Margarita Amenedo Gancedo; Peter C Fong; Jeffrey C Goh; David M O'Malley; Deborah K Armstrong; Susana Banerjee; Jesus García-Donas; Elizabeth M Swisher; Terri Cameron; Lara Maloney; Sandra Goble; Robert L Coleman Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M K Wilson; E Pujade-Lauraine; D Aoki; M R Mirza; D Lorusso; A M Oza; A du Bois; I Vergote; A Reuss; M Bacon; M Friedlander; D Gallardo-Rincon; F Joly; S-J Chang; A M Ferrero; R J Edmondson; P Wimberger; J Maenpaa; D Gaffney; R Zang; A Okamoto; G Stuart; K Ochiai Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: N T Phippen; A A Secord; S Wolf; G Samsa; B Davidson; A P Abernethy; D Cella; L J Havrilesky; R A Burger; B J Monk; C A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-07-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Laura J Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Jessie A Ehrisman; Andrew Berchuck; Fidel A Valea; Paula S Lee; Stephanie L Gaillard; Greg P Samsa; David Cella; Kevin P Weinfurt; Amy P Abernethy; Shelby D Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 6.860