Lorenzo Trippa1, Patrick Y Wen1, Giovanni Parmigiani1, Donald A Berry1, Brian M Alexander1. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts (L.T., G.P.); Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts (L.T., G.P.); Center for Neuro-Oncology Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, (P.Y.W., B.M.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (B.M.A.); Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (D.A.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of auxiliary endpoints may provide efficiencies for clinical trial design, but such endpoints may not have intrinsic clinical relevance or clear linkage to more meaningful endpoints. The purpose of this study was to generate a novel endpoint that considers both overall survival (OS) and earlier events such as progression-free survival (PFS) and determine whether such an endpoint could increase efficiency in the design of glioblastoma clinical trials. METHODS: Recognizing that the association between PFS and OS varies depending on therapy and tumor type, we developed a statistical model to predict OS based on PFS as the trial progresses. We then evaluated the efficiency of our model using simulations of adaptively randomized trials incorporating PFS and OS distributions from prior published trials in neuro-oncology. RESULTS: When treatment effects on PFS and OS are concordant, our proposed approach results in efficiency gains compared with randomization based on OS alone while sacrificing minimal efficiency compared with using PFS as the primary endpoint. When treatment effects are limited to PFS, our approach provides randomization probabilities that are close to those based on OS alone. CONCLUSION: Use of OS as the primary endpoint, combined with statistical modeling of the relationship between OS and PFS during the course of the trial, results in more robust and efficient trial designs than using either endpoint alone.
BACKGROUND: The use of auxiliary endpoints may provide efficiencies for clinical trial design, but such endpoints may not have intrinsic clinical relevance or clear linkage to more meaningful endpoints. The purpose of this study was to generate a novel endpoint that considers both overall survival (OS) and earlier events such as progression-free survival (PFS) and determine whether such an endpoint could increase efficiency in the design of glioblastoma clinical trials. METHODS: Recognizing that the association between PFS and OS varies depending on therapy and tumor type, we developed a statistical model to predict OS based on PFS as the trial progresses. We then evaluated the efficiency of our model using simulations of adaptively randomized trials incorporating PFS and OS distributions from prior published trials in neuro-oncology. RESULTS: When treatment effects on PFS and OS are concordant, our proposed approach results in efficiency gains compared with randomization based on OS alone while sacrificing minimal efficiency compared with using PFS as the primary endpoint. When treatment effects are limited to PFS, our approach provides randomization probabilities that are close to those based on OS alone. CONCLUSION: Use of OS as the primary endpoint, combined with statistical modeling of the relationship between OS and PFS during the course of the trial, results in more robust and efficient trial designs than using either endpoint alone.
Authors: Olivier L Chinot; Wolfgang Wick; Warren Mason; Roger Henriksson; Frank Saran; Ryo Nishikawa; Antoine F Carpentier; Khe Hoang-Xuan; Petr Kavan; Dana Cernea; Alba A Brandes; Magalie Hilton; Lauren Abrey; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; James J Dignam; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Deborah T Blumenthal; Michael A Vogelbaum; Howard Colman; Arnab Chakravarti; Stephanie Pugh; Minhee Won; Robert Jeraj; Paul D Brown; Kurt A Jaeckle; David Schiff; Volker W Stieber; David G Brachman; Maria Werner-Wasik; Ivo W Tremont-Lukats; Erik P Sulman; Kenneth D Aldape; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; Meihua Wang; Kenneth D Aldape; Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Kurt A Jaeckle; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Minhee Won; Deborah T Blumenthal; Anita Mahajan; Christopher J Schultz; Sara Erridge; Brigitta Baumert; Kristen I Hopkins; Tzahala Tzuk-Shina; Paul D Brown; Arnab Chakravarti; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mei-Yin C Polley; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Nicholas Butowski; Jennifer L Clarke; Michael Prados Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Alyssa M Vanderbeek; Rifaquat Rahman; Geoffrey Fell; Steffen Ventz; Tianqi Chen; Robert Redd; Giovanni Parmigiani; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Lorenzo Trippa; Brian M Alexander Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Shyam K Tanguturi; Lorenzo Trippa; Shakti H Ramkissoon; Kristine Pelton; David Knoff; David Sandak; Neal I Lindeman; Azra H Ligon; Rameen Beroukhim; Giovanni Parmigiani; Patrick Y Wen; Keith L Ligon; Brian M Alexander Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Austin Kulasekararaj; Axel Glasmacher; Peng Liu; Jeff Szer; David Araten; Geraldine Rauch; Chad Gwaltney; J Rafael Sierra; Jong Wook Lee Journal: Eur J Haematol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.674