James J Dignam1, Daniel A Hamstra2, Herbert Lepor3, David Grignon4, Harmar Brereton5, Adam Currey6, Seth Rosenthal7, Kenneth L Zeitzer8, Varagur M Venkatesan9, Eric M Horwitz10, Thomas M Pisansky11, Howard M Sandler12. 1. 1 NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 2. 2 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. 3 New York University, New York, NY. 4. 4 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 5. 5 Northeast Radiation Oncology Center, Dunmore, PA. 6. 6 Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 7. 7 Sutter General Hospital, Sacramento, CA. 8. 8 Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. 9. 9 London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada. 10. 10 Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 11. 11 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 12. 12 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. RESULTS:LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. CONCLUSION: The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. RESULTS: LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. CONCLUSION: The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.
Authors: Richard K Valicenti; Michelle DeSilvio; Gerald E Hanks; Arthur Porter; Harmar Brereton; Seth A Rosenthal; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael E Ray; Howard D Thames; Larry B Levy; Eric M Horwitz; Patrick A Kupelian; Alvaro A Martinez; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; William U Shipley; Michael J Zelefsky; Anthony L Zietman; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James W Denham; Allison Steigler; Chantelle Wilcox; David S Lamb; David Joseph; Chris Atkinson; John Matthews; Keen-Hun Tai; Nigel A Spry; David Christie; Paul S Gleeson; Peter B Greer; Catherine D'Este Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Lawrence B Levy; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Seungtaek Choi; Steven Frank; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael E Ray; Kyounghwa Bae; Maha H A Hussain; Gerald E Hanks; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mark Shilkrut; P William McLaughlin; Gregory S Merrick; Jeffrey M Vainshtein; Felix Y Feng; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judd W Moul; Peter R Carroll; Leon Sun; Deborah Lubeck; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-09-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Marc Buyse; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Oliver Sartor; Howard Soule; Noel W Clarke; Laurence Collette; James J Dignam; Karim Fizazi; Wendy R Paruleker; Howard M Sandler; Matthew R Sydes; Bertrand Tombal; Scott G Williams; Christopher J Sweeney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Marc Buyse; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Oliver Sartor; Howard Soule; Donald Berry; Noel Clarke; Laurence Collette; Anthony D'Amico; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; James Dignam; Mario Eisenberger; Nicholas James; Karim Fizazi; Silke Gillessen; Yohann Loriot; Nicolas Mottet; Wendy Parulekar; Howard Sandler; Daniel E Spratt; Matthew R Sydes; Bertrand Tombal; Scott Williams; Christopher J Sweeney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher U Jones; Stephanie L Pugh; Howard M Sandler; Michael P Chetner; Mahul B Amin; Deborah W Bruner; Anthony L Zietman; Robert B Den; Mark H Leibenhaut; John M Longo; Jean-Paul Bahary; Seth A Rosenthal; Luis Souhami; Jeff M Michalski; Alan C Hartford; Pradip P Amin; Mack Roach; Don Yee; Jason A Efstathiou; Joseph P Rodgers; Felix Y Feng; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William C Jackson; Ming Tang; Matthew J Schipper; Howard M Sandler; Zachary S Zumsteg; Jason A Efstathiou; William U Shipley; Wendy Seiferheld; Himanshu R Lukka; Jean-Paul Bahary; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas M Pisansky; Kenneth L Zeitzer; William A Hall; Robert T Dess; Richard D Lovett; Alexander G Balogh; Felix Y Feng; Daniel E Spratt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Patrick Leo; Sacheth Chandramouli; Xavier Farré; Robin Elliott; Andrew Janowczyk; Kaustav Bera; Pingfu Fu; Nafiseh Janaki; Ayah El-Fahmawi; Mohammed Shahait; Jessica Kim; David Lee; Kosj Yamoah; Timothy R Rebbeck; Francesca Khani; Brian D Robinson; Natalie N C Shih; Michael Feldman; Sanjay Gupta; Jesse McKenney; Priti Lal; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2021-04-30