Takehito Shukuya1, Keita Mori2, Joseph M Amann1, Erin M Bertino1, Gregory A Otterson1, Peter G Shields1, Satoshi Morita3, David P Carbone4. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Clinical Trial Coordination Office, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi-cho, Suntou-gun, Shizuoka, Japan. 3. Department of Biomedical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address: david.carbone@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alternative predictive end points for overall survival (OS), such as tumor response and progression-free survival (PFS), are useful in the early detection of drug efficacy; however, they have not been fully investigated in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies. METHODS: In a systematic review of the reported prospective clinical trials, data for response rate, median PFS, and median OS were extracted from 12 arms in 10 reported clinical trials using anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody, and their correlation was investigated. In a retrospective analysis at our institution, OS was compared according to tumor response on 5- to 9-week computed tomography scans and status of being progression-free at 8, 16, and 24 weeks by landmark analysis in 71 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies between 2013 and 2015. RESULTS: In a systematic review, moderate correlations between median OS and median PFS (p = 0.120, r = 0.473) and between median OS and response rate (p = 0.141, r = 0.452) were identified using the Spearman correlation coefficient, although these correlations were not statistically significant. In a retrospective analysis of patients treated at our institution, disease control (partial response [PR]/stable disease versus progressive disease/not evaluable), and progression-free status at 8, 16, and 24 weeks significantly predicted OS (Cox proportional hazards model, PR/stable disease versus progressive disease/not evaluable, p = 0.0104, HR = 3.041; 8-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0183, HR = 2.684; 16-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0036, HR = 4.009; and 24-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0002, HR = 12.726). CONCLUSIONS: Both disease control (PR plus stable disease status) and landmark progression-free survival were correlated with OS, with the longer interval landmark PFS being the best predictor of survival in patients with NSCLC treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.
INTRODUCTION: Alternative predictive end points for overall survival (OS), such as tumor response and progression-free survival (PFS), are useful in the early detection of drug efficacy; however, they have not been fully investigated in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies. METHODS: In a systematic review of the reported prospective clinical trials, data for response rate, median PFS, and median OS were extracted from 12 arms in 10 reported clinical trials using anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody, and their correlation was investigated. In a retrospective analysis at our institution, OS was compared according to tumor response on 5- to 9-week computed tomography scans and status of being progression-free at 8, 16, and 24 weeks by landmark analysis in 71 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies between 2013 and 2015. RESULTS: In a systematic review, moderate correlations between median OS and median PFS (p = 0.120, r = 0.473) and between median OS and response rate (p = 0.141, r = 0.452) were identified using the Spearman correlation coefficient, although these correlations were not statistically significant. In a retrospective analysis of patients treated at our institution, disease control (partial response [PR]/stable disease versus progressive disease/not evaluable), and progression-free status at 8, 16, and 24 weeks significantly predicted OS (Cox proportional hazards model, PR/stable disease versus progressive disease/not evaluable, p = 0.0104, HR = 3.041; 8-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0183, HR = 2.684; 16-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0036, HR = 4.009; and 24-week progression-free yes versus no, p = 0.0002, HR = 12.726). CONCLUSIONS: Both disease control (PR plus stable disease status) and landmark progression-free survival were correlated with OS, with the longer interval landmark PFS being the best predictor of survival in patients with NSCLC treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.
Authors: T Berghmans; F Pasleau; M Paesmans; Y Bonduelle; J Cadranel; I Cs Toth; C Garcia; V Giner; S Holbrechts; J J Lafitte; J Lecomte; I Louviaux; E Markiewicz; A P Meert; M Richez; M Roelandts; A Scherpereel; Ch Tulippe; P Van Houtte; P Van Schil; C Wachters; V Westeel; J P Sculier Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Edward B Garon; Naiyer A Rizvi; Rina Hui; Natasha Leighl; Ani S Balmanoukian; Joseph Paul Eder; Amita Patnaik; Charu Aggarwal; Matthew Gubens; Leora Horn; Enric Carcereny; Myung-Ju Ahn; Enriqueta Felip; Jong-Seok Lee; Matthew D Hellmann; Omid Hamid; Jonathan W Goldman; Jean-Charles Soria; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Ruth Z Rutledge; Jin Zhang; Jared K Lunceford; Reshma Rangwala; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Charlotte Roach; Kenneth Emancipator; Leena Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott N Gettinger; Leora Horn; Leena Gandhi; David R Spigel; Scott J Antonia; Naiyer A Rizvi; John D Powderly; Rebecca S Heist; Richard D Carvajal; David M Jackman; Lecia V Sequist; David C Smith; Philip Leming; David P Carbone; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Suzanne L Topalian; F Stephen Hodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Mario Sznol; David F McDermott; Drew M Pardoll; Vindira Sankar; Christoph M Ahlers; Mark Salvati; Jon M Wigginton; Matthew D Hellmann; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok K Gupta; Julie R Brahmer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G J Freeman; A J Long; Y Iwai; K Bourque; T Chernova; H Nishimura; L J Fitz; N Malenkovich; T Okazaki; M C Byrne; H F Horton; L Fouser; L Carter; V Ling; M R Bowman; B M Carreno; M Collins; C R Wood; T Honjo Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2000-10-02 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Myrto Moutafi; Sandra Martinez-Morilla; Prajan Divakar; Ioannis Vathiotis; Niki Gavrielatou; Thazin Nwe Aung; Vesal Yaghoobi; Aileen I Fernandez; Jon Zugazagoitia; Roy S Herbst; Kurt A Schalper; David L Rimm Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 20.121
Authors: Ying L Liu; Pier Selenica; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Margaret Callahan; Noah Z Feit; Julia Boland; Ignacio Vazquez-Garcia; Diana Mandelker; Ahmet Zehir; Robert A Burger; Daniel J Powell; Claire Friedman; Karen Cadoo; Rachel Grisham; Jason A Konner; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Carol Aghajanian; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Britta Weigelt; Dmitriy Zamarin Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Takehito Shukuya; Vikas Ghai; Joseph M Amann; Tamio Okimoto; Konstantin Shilo; Taek-Kyun Kim; Kai Wang; David P Carbone Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 15.609