Ashish M Kamat1, Richard J Sylvester2, Andreas Böhle2, Joan Palou2, Donald L Lamm2, Maurizio Brausi2, Mark Soloway2, Raj Persad2, Roger Buckley2, Marc Colombel2, J Alfred Witjes2. 1. Ashish M. Kamat, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard J. Sylvester, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium; Andreas Böhle, HELIOS Agnes Karll Hospital, Bad Schwartau, Germany; Joan Palou, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Donald L. Lamm, University of Arizona and BCG Oncology, Phoenix, AZ; Maurizio Brausi, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Modena, Modena, Italy; Mark Soloway, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL; Raj Persad, Bristol Royal Infirmary and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, United Kingdom; Roger Buckley, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Marc Colombel, Claude Bernard University, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; and J. Alfred Witjes, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. akamat@mdanderson.org. 2. Ashish M. Kamat, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Richard J. Sylvester, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium; Andreas Böhle, HELIOS Agnes Karll Hospital, Bad Schwartau, Germany; Joan Palou, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Donald L. Lamm, University of Arizona and BCG Oncology, Phoenix, AZ; Maurizio Brausi, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Modena, Modena, Italy; Mark Soloway, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL; Raj Persad, Bristol Royal Infirmary and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, United Kingdom; Roger Buckley, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Marc Colombel, Claude Bernard University, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; and J. Alfred Witjes, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on appropriate clinical trial designs in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) based on current literature and expert consensus of the International Bladder Cancer Group. METHODS: We reviewed published trials, guidelines, meta-analyses, and reviews and provided recommendations on eligibility criteria, baseline evaluations, end points, study designs, comparators, clinically meaningful magnitude of effect, and sample size. RESULTS: NMIBC trials must be designed to provide the most clinically relevant data for the specific risk category of interest (low, intermediate, or high). Specific eligibility criteria and baseline evaluations depend on the risk category being studied. For the population of patients for whom bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has failed, the type of failure (BCG unresponsive, refractory, relapsing, or intolerant) should be clearly defined to make comparisons across trials feasible. Single-arm designs may be relevant for the BCG-unresponsive population. Here, a clinically meaningful initial complete response rate (for carcinoma in situ) or recurrence-free rate (for papillary tumors) of at least 50% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months, and 25% at 18 months is recommended. For other risk levels, randomized superiority trial designs are recommended; noninferiority trials are to be used sparingly given the large sample size required. Placebo control is considered unethical for all intermediate- and high-risk strata; therefore, control arms should comprise the current guideline-recommended standard of care for the respective risk level. In general, trials should use time to recurrence or recurrence-free survival as the primary end point and time to progression, toxicity, disease-specific survival, and overall survival as potential secondary end points. Realistic efficacy thresholds should be set to ensure that novel therapies receive due review by regulatory bodies. CONCLUSION: The International Bladder Cancer Group has developed formal recommendations regarding definitions, end points, and clinical trial designs for NMIBC to encourage uniformity among studies in this disease.
PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on appropriate clinical trial designs in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) based on current literature and expert consensus of the International Bladder Cancer Group. METHODS: We reviewed published trials, guidelines, meta-analyses, and reviews and provided recommendations on eligibility criteria, baseline evaluations, end points, study designs, comparators, clinically meaningful magnitude of effect, and sample size. RESULTS: NMIBC trials must be designed to provide the most clinically relevant data for the specific risk category of interest (low, intermediate, or high). Specific eligibility criteria and baseline evaluations depend on the risk category being studied. For the population of patients for whom bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has failed, the type of failure (BCG unresponsive, refractory, relapsing, or intolerant) should be clearly defined to make comparisons across trials feasible. Single-arm designs may be relevant for the BCG-unresponsive population. Here, a clinically meaningful initial complete response rate (for carcinoma in situ) or recurrence-free rate (for papillary tumors) of at least 50% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months, and 25% at 18 months is recommended. For other risk levels, randomized superiority trial designs are recommended; noninferiority trials are to be used sparingly given the large sample size required. Placebo control is considered unethical for all intermediate- and high-risk strata; therefore, control arms should comprise the current guideline-recommended standard of care for the respective risk level. In general, trials should use time to recurrence or recurrence-free survival as the primary end point and time to progression, toxicity, disease-specific survival, and overall survival as potential secondary end points. Realistic efficacy thresholds should be set to ensure that novel therapies receive due review by regulatory bodies. CONCLUSION: The International Bladder Cancer Group has developed formal recommendations regarding definitions, end points, and clinical trial designs for NMIBC to encourage uniformity among studies in this disease.
Authors: James M McKiernan; Puneet Masson; Alana M Murphy; Manlio Goetzl; Carl A Olsson; Daniel P Petrylak; Manisha Desai; Mitchell C Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan P Jarow; Seth P Lerner; Paul G Kluetz; Ke Liu; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Dean Bajorin; Sam Chang; Colin P N Dinney; Susan Groshen; Ronald A Morton; Michael O'Donnell; Diane Zipursky Quale; Mark Schoenberg; John Seigne; Bhadrasain Vikram Journal: Urology Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Guido Dalbagni; Paul Russo; Joel Sheinfeld; Madhu Mazumdar; William Tong; Farhang Rabbani; Machelle S Donat; Harry W Herr; Pramod Sogani; Dominique dePalma; Dean Bajorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alvaro Morales; Harry Herr; Gary Steinberg; Robert Given; Zvi Cohen; John Amrhein; Ashish M Kamat Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Max Kates; Abhijit Date; Takahiro Yoshida; Umara Afzal; Pranjali Kanvinde; Taarika Babu; Nikolai A Sopko; Hotaka Matsui; Noah M Hahn; David J McConkey; Alexander Baras; Justin Hanes; Laura Ensign; Trinity J Bivalacqua Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael J Metcalfe; James E Ferguson; Roger Li; Lianchun Xiao; Charles C Guo; Bogdan A Czerniak; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Shanna M Pretzsch; Neema Navai; David J McConkey; Ashish M Kamat; Mathew Campbell; Colin Dinney Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-07-13
Authors: Roger Li; Michael J Metcalfe; James E Ferguson; Sharada Mokkapati; Graciela M Nogueras González; Colin P Dinney; Neema Navai; David J McConkey; Sunil K Sahai; Ashish M Kamat Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Neal D Shore; Stephen A Boorjian; Daniel J Canter; Kenneth Ogan; Lawrence I Karsh; Tracy M Downs; Leonard G Gomella; Ashish M Kamat; Yair Lotan; Robert S Svatek; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Robert L Grubb; Tracey L Krupski; Seth P Lerner; Michael E Woods; Brant A Inman; Matthew I Milowsky; Alan Boyd; F Peter Treasure; Gillian Gregory; David G Sawutz; Seppo Yla-Herttuala; Nigel R Parker; Colin P N Dinney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adithya Balasubramanian; Michael J Metcalfe; Gavin Wagenheim; Lianchun Xiao; John Papadopoulos; Neema Navai; John W Davis; Jose A Karam; Ashish M Kamat; Christopher G Wood; Colin P Dinney; Surena F Matin Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Manish I Patel; Margaret-Ann Tait; David P Smith; Daniel S J Costa; Shomik Sengupta; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 4.147