Georgia Ritchie1,2, Harry Gasper1, Johnathan Man1, Sally Lord3,4, Ian Marschner3,5, Michael Friedlander2,3,6, Chee Khoon Lee1,3. 1. Cancer Care Centre, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Statistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 6. Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors have a unique mechanism of action that differs from chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The validity of objective response rate (ORR) as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in checkpoint-inhibitor trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of primary end points used in phase 2 checkpoint-inhibitor trials, and to assess the strength of associations for ORR with PFS and OS. DATA SOURCES: Trials listed in electronic databases from 2000 to 2017 (PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). STUDY SELECTION: Advanced solid cancers in phase 2 and phase 3 trials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Correlations between ORR odds ratios and hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were examined for randomized comparisons. Within checkpoint-inhibitor treatment arms, correlations for ORR with 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates were examined. All analyses were weighted by trial size. Multivariable models to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates from ORR were developed and their performance validated in an independent sample of trials. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Correlation coefficient (r) of ORR with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 87 phase 2 trials identified, ORR was the most common (52 [60%]) primary end point. Twenty randomized clinical trials with 25 treatment comparisons were identified. Checkpoint-inhibitor therapy was associated with pooled ORR of 24% (95% CI, 18%-31%). For randomized comparisons, r between ORR odds ratio and PFS HR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.89), ORR odds ratio and OS HR was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.23-0.89), and between PFS HR and OS HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.04-0.81). Within the checkpoint-inhibitor arms, r correlation coefficients between ORR with 6-month PFS, ORR with 12-month OS, and 6-month PFS with 12-month OS were 0.37 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.95), 0.08 (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.70), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.92), respectively. In validation, when 6-month PFS was used to predict 12-month OS, there was a good calibration between actual and predicted 12-month OS. When ORR was used to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates, respectively, the actual vs predicted rates calibrated poorly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In checkpoint-inhibitor trials, ORR correlated poorly with OS. For future phase 2 studies, 6-month PFS rate is recommended as an end point.
IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors have a unique mechanism of action that differs from chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The validity of objective response rate (ORR) as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in checkpoint-inhibitor trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of primary end points used in phase 2 checkpoint-inhibitor trials, and to assess the strength of associations for ORR with PFS and OS. DATA SOURCES: Trials listed in electronic databases from 2000 to 2017 (PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). STUDY SELECTION: Advanced solid cancers in phase 2 and phase 3 trials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Correlations between ORR odds ratios and hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were examined for randomized comparisons. Within checkpoint-inhibitor treatment arms, correlations for ORR with 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates were examined. All analyses were weighted by trial size. Multivariable models to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates from ORR were developed and their performance validated in an independent sample of trials. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Correlation coefficient (r) of ORR with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 87 phase 2 trials identified, ORR was the most common (52 [60%]) primary end point. Twenty randomized clinical trials with 25 treatment comparisons were identified. Checkpoint-inhibitor therapy was associated with pooled ORR of 24% (95% CI, 18%-31%). For randomized comparisons, r between ORR odds ratio and PFS HR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.89), ORR odds ratio and OS HR was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.23-0.89), and between PFS HR and OS HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.04-0.81). Within the checkpoint-inhibitor arms, r correlation coefficients between ORR with 6-month PFS, ORR with 12-month OS, and 6-month PFS with 12-month OS were 0.37 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.95), 0.08 (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.70), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.92), respectively. In validation, when 6-month PFS was used to predict 12-month OS, there was a good calibration between actual and predicted 12-month OS. When ORR was used to predict 6-month PFS and 12-month OS rates, respectively, the actual vs predicted rates calibrated poorly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In checkpoint-inhibitor trials, ORR correlated poorly with OS. For future phase 2 studies, 6-month PFS rate is recommended as an end point.
Authors: Caroline Robert; Georgina V Long; Benjamin Brady; Caroline Dutriaux; Michele Maio; Laurent Mortier; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Catriona McNeil; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Kerry J Savage; Micaela M Hernberg; Celeste Lebbé; Julie Charles; Catalin Mihalcioiu; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Cornelia Mauch; Francesco Cognetti; Ana Arance; Henrik Schmidt; Dirk Schadendorf; Helen Gogas; Lotta Lundgren-Eriksson; Christine Horak; Brian Sharkey; Ian M Waxman; Victoria Atkinson; Paolo A Ascierto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott Gettinger; Naiyer A Rizvi; Laura Q Chow; Hossein Borghaei; Julie Brahmer; Neal Ready; David E Gerber; Frances A Shepherd; Scott Antonia; Jonathan W Goldman; Rosalyn A Juergens; Scott A Laurie; Faith E Nathan; Yun Shen; Christopher T Harbison; Matthew D Hellmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John R Johnson; Yang-Min Ning; Ann Farrell; Robert Justice; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Antoni Ribas; Richard Kefford; Margaret A Marshall; Cornelis J A Punt; John B Haanen; Maribel Marmol; Claus Garbe; Helen Gogas; Jacob Schachter; Gerald Linette; Paul Lorigan; Kari L Kendra; Michele Maio; Uwe Trefzer; Michael Smylie; Grant A McArthur; Brigitte Dreno; Paul D Nathan; Jacek Mackiewicz; John M Kirkwood; Jesus Gomez-Navarro; Bo Huang; Dmitri Pavlov; Axel Hauschild Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Sandra P D'Angelo; David Minor; F Stephen Hodi; Ralf Gutzmer; Bart Neyns; Christoph Hoeller; Nikhil I Khushalani; Wilson H Miller; Christopher D Lao; Gerald P Linette; Luc Thomas; Paul Lorigan; Kenneth F Grossmann; Jessica C Hassel; Michele Maio; Mario Sznol; Paolo A Ascierto; Peter Mohr; Bartosz Chmielowski; Alan Bryce; Inge M Svane; Jean-Jacques Grob; Angela M Krackhardt; Christine Horak; Alexandre Lambert; Arvin S Yang; James Larkin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Darryl A Oble; Jan Drappatz; Elsa F Velazquez; Nikhil Ramaiya; Naren Ramakrishna; Arthur L Day; Andrea Kruse; Suzanne Mac Rae; Axel Hoos; Martin Mihm Journal: Nat Clin Pract Oncol Date: 2008-07-29
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Wen-Jen Hwu; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Adil Daud; Omid Hamid; Amita Patnaik; Antoni Ribas; Caroline Robert; Tara C Gangadhar; Anthony M Joshua; Peter Hersey; Roxana Dronca; Richard Joseph; Darcy Hille; Dahai Xue; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; S Peter Kang; Scot Ebbinghaus; Andrea Perrone; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Marcus Butler; Darryl A Oble; Michael V Seiden; Frank G Haluska; Andrea Kruse; Suzanne Macrae; Marybeth Nelson; Christine Canning; Israel Lowy; Alan Korman; David Lautz; Sara Russell; Michael T Jaklitsch; Nikhil Ramaiya; Teresa C Chen; Donna Neuberg; James P Allison; Martin C Mihm; Glenn Dranoff Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lisa Zimmer; Thomas K Eigentler; Felix Kiecker; Jan Simon; Jochen Utikal; Peter Mohr; Carola Berking; Eckhart Kämpgen; Edgar Dippel; Rudolf Stadler; Axel Hauschild; Michael Fluck; Patrick Terheyden; Rainer Rompel; Carmen Loquai; Zeinab Assi; Claus Garbe; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Fausto Petrelli; Michele Ghidini; Antonio Costanzo; Valentina Rampulla; Antonio Varricchio; Gianluca Tomasello Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-04
Authors: Lawrence Fong; Andrew Hotson; John D Powderly; Mario Sznol; Rebecca S Heist; Toni K Choueiri; Saby George; Brett G M Hughes; Matthew D Hellmann; Dale R Shepard; Brian I Rini; Shivaani Kummar; Amy M Weise; Matthew J Riese; Ben Markman; Leisha A Emens; Daruka Mahadevan; Jason J Luke; Ginna Laport; Joshua D Brody; Leonel Hernandez-Aya; Philip Bonomi; Jonathan W Goldman; Lyudmyla Berim; Daniel J Renouf; Rachel A Goodwin; Brian Munneke; Po Y Ho; Jessica Hsieh; Ian McCaffery; Long Kwei; Stephen B Willingham; Richard A Miller Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 38.272