Geoffrey R Oxnard1, Katharine H Wilcox1, Mithat Gonen2, Mikhael Polotsky3, Bradford R Hirsch4, Lawrence H Schwartz3. 1. Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 3. Department of Radiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York. 4. Duke Cancer Care Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Objective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly important end point for accelerated development of highly active anticancer therapies, yet its relationship to regulatory approval is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To identify circumstances in which a high ORR is associated with regulatory approval, and therefore might be an appropriate end point for definitive single-arm studies of anticancer therapies. DATA SOURCE: A database of all oncology clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Trials of palliative systemic therapies for 4 measurable solid tumor types, limited to those with trial arms of at least 20 patients reporting ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A systematic search was used to identify the reported ORR for each eligible treatment arm that had been presented publicly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each treatment regimen, defined as a single-agent or unique combination of agents for 1 cancer type, the mean ORR and the maximum ORR statistically exceeded were calculated, and their association with regulatory approval was studied. A regimen was considered approved for a specific cancer type if it had received regulatory approval in any country for treatment of advanced cancer of that type. RESULTS: From 1800 trials, 874 eligible trial arms in 578 eligible trials were identified; 542 arms had ORR data available for 294 regimens. Maximum ORR and mean ORR were significantly associated with regulatory approval (τ = 0.27, P < .001; τ = 0.12, P = .01); this relationship was stronger for single-agent therapies (τ = 0.49; τ = 0.41) than for combination regimens (τ = 0.28; τ = 0.17). Evaluation of ORR thresholds between 20% and 60% as potential trial end points demonstrated that ORR statistically exceeding 30% with a single agent had 98% specificity and 89% positive predictive value for identifying regimens achieving regulatory approval. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For single-agent regimens, high ORR was associated with regulatory approval; this relationship was less strong for combination regimens. Our data suggest that high ORR (eg, statistically exceeding an ORR of 30%) is an appropriate end point for single-arm trials aiming to demonstrate breakthrough activity of a single-agent anticancer therapy.
IMPORTANCE: Objective response rate (ORR) is an increasingly important end point for accelerated development of highly active anticancer therapies, yet its relationship to regulatory approval is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To identify circumstances in which a high ORR is associated with regulatory approval, and therefore might be an appropriate end point for definitive single-arm studies of anticancer therapies. DATA SOURCE: A database of all oncology clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Trials of palliative systemic therapies for 4 measurable solid tumor types, limited to those with trial arms of at least 20 patients reporting ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A systematic search was used to identify the reported ORR for each eligible treatment arm that had been presented publicly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each treatment regimen, defined as a single-agent or unique combination of agents for 1 cancer type, the mean ORR and the maximum ORR statistically exceeded were calculated, and their association with regulatory approval was studied. A regimen was considered approved for a specific cancer type if it had received regulatory approval in any country for treatment of advanced cancer of that type. RESULTS: From 1800 trials, 874 eligible trial arms in 578 eligible trials were identified; 542 arms had ORR data available for 294 regimens. Maximum ORR and mean ORR were significantly associated with regulatory approval (τ = 0.27, P < .001; τ = 0.12, P = .01); this relationship was stronger for single-agent therapies (τ = 0.49; τ = 0.41) than for combination regimens (τ = 0.28; τ = 0.17). Evaluation of ORR thresholds between 20% and 60% as potential trial end points demonstrated that ORR statistically exceeding 30% with a single agent had 98% specificity and 89% positive predictive value for identifying regimens achieving regulatory approval. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For single-agent regimens, high ORR was associated with regulatory approval; this relationship was less strong for combination regimens. Our data suggest that high ORR (eg, statistically exceeding an ORR of 30%) is an appropriate end point for single-arm trials aiming to demonstrate breakthrough activity of a single-agent anticancer therapy.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Keith T Flaherty; Igor Puzanov; Kevin B Kim; Antoni Ribas; Grant A McArthur; Jeffrey A Sosman; Peter J O'Dwyer; Richard J Lee; Joseph F Grippo; Keith Nolop; Paul B Chapman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carol Beadling; Erick Jacobson-Dunlop; F Stephen Hodi; Claudia Le; Andrea Warrick; Janice Patterson; Ajia Town; Amy Harlow; Frank Cruz; Sharl Azar; Brian P Rubin; Susan Muller; Rob West; Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Michael J Morris; F Stephen Hodi; Laurence H Baker; Mark G Kris; Alan P Venook; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laurent Dercle; Dana E Connors; Ying Tang; Stacey J Adam; Mithat Gönen; Patrick Hilden; Sanja Karovic; Michael Maitland; Chaya S Moskowitz; Gary Kelloff; Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-12
Authors: Seung Tae Kim; Kimberly C Banks; Se-Hoon Lee; Kyung Kim; Joon Oh Park; Se Hoon Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Richard B Lanman; AmirAli Talasaz; Keunchil Park; Jeeyun Lee Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-06-26
Authors: Alexander Drilon; Natasha Rekhtman; Maria Arcila; Lu Wang; Andy Ni; Melanie Albano; Martine Van Voorthuysen; Romel Somwar; Roger S Smith; Joseph Montecalvo; Andrew Plodkowski; Michelle S Ginsberg; Gregory J Riely; Charles M Rudin; Marc Ladanyi; Mark G Kris Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 41.316