Run-Cong Nie1, Fo-Ping Chen2, Shu-Qiang Yuan1, Ying-Shan Luo2, Shi Chen3, Yong-Ming Chen1, Xiao-Jiang Chen1, Ying-Bo Chen1, Yuan-Fang Li4, Zhi-Wei Zhou5. 1. Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Gastric Surgery, The 6th Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: liyuanf@sysucc.org.cn. 5. Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: zhouzhw@sysucc.org.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria-based objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) could be valid surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) in anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) trials. METHODS: We systematically reviewed phase 2 and phase 3 trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 drug trials of advanced or recurrent solid tumours that reported OS and at least one of the RECIST criteria-based end-points. We used Spearman rank correlation to evaluate the strength of the association between these end-points and OS and a linear regression model, weighted by the sample size, to assess the association between the treatment effect on these end-points and OS. We also performed sensitivity analyses and a leave-one-out cross-validation approach to evaluate the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: Forty-three qualifying trails comprising 15,088 patients were eligible. PFS showed good correlation with OS (squared Spearman rank correlation coefficient [rs2] = 0.54; P < 0.001), while ORR and DCR illustrated moderate association with OS (rs2 = 0.29 and 0.28, respectively; both P < 0.001). The correlation was moderate between the treatment effects on PFS and OS (coefficient of determination [R2] = 0.37, P < 0.001) and poor among ORR, DCR and OS (R2 = 0.10 and 0.08, respectively); these were confirmed by sensitivity analyses (all R2 < 0.75) and the leave-one-out cross-validation approach. CONCLUSIONS: No RECIST criteria-based end-points could be a valid surrogate for OS. At present, we proposed to set OS as the primary end-point in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 drug trials of advanced or recurrent solid tumours.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria-based objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) could be valid surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) in anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) trials. METHODS: We systematically reviewed phase 2 and phase 3 trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 drug trials of advanced or recurrent solid tumours that reported OS and at least one of the RECIST criteria-based end-points. We used Spearman rank correlation to evaluate the strength of the association between these end-points and OS and a linear regression model, weighted by the sample size, to assess the association between the treatment effect on these end-points and OS. We also performed sensitivity analyses and a leave-one-out cross-validation approach to evaluate the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: Forty-three qualifying trails comprising 15,088 patients were eligible. PFS showed good correlation with OS (squared Spearman rank correlation coefficient [rs2] = 0.54; P < 0.001), while ORR and DCR illustrated moderate association with OS (rs2 = 0.29 and 0.28, respectively; both P < 0.001). The correlation was moderate between the treatment effects on PFS and OS (coefficient of determination [R2] = 0.37, P < 0.001) and poor among ORR, DCR and OS (R2 = 0.10 and 0.08, respectively); these were confirmed by sensitivity analyses (all R2 < 0.75) and the leave-one-out cross-validation approach. CONCLUSIONS: No RECIST criteria-based end-points could be a valid surrogate for OS. At present, we proposed to set OS as the primary end-point in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 drug trials of advanced or recurrent solid tumours.
Authors: Fausto Petrelli; Michele Ghidini; Antonio Costanzo; Valentina Rampulla; Antonio Varricchio; Gianluca Tomasello Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-04
Authors: Giovanni Fucà; Francesca Corti; Margherita Ambrosini; Rossana Intini; Massimiliano Salati; Elisabetta Fenocchio; Paolo Manca; Chiara Manai; Francesca Daniel; Alessandra Raimondi; Federica Morano; Salvatore Corallo; Michele Prisciandaro; Andrea Spallanzani; Virginia Quarà; Carmen Belli; Marta Vaiani; Giuseppe Curigliano; Chiara Cremolini; Filippo De Braud; Maria Di Bartolomeo; Vittorina Zagonel; Sara Lonardi; Filippo Pietrantonio Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 13.751