Literature DB >> 30838402

Assessing Long-Term Survival Benefits of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using the Net Survival Benefit.

Julien Péron, Alexandre Lambert, Stephane Munier, Brice Ozenne, Joris Giai, Pascal Roy, Stéphane Dalle, Abigirl Machingura, Delphine Maucort-Boulch, Marc Buyse.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The treatment effect in survival analysis is commonly quantified as the hazard ratio, and tested statistically using the standard log-rank test. Modern anticancer immunotherapies are successful in a proportion of patients who remain alive even after a long-term follow-up. This new phenomenon induces a nonproportionality of the underlying hazards of death.
METHODS: The properties of the net survival benefit were illustrated using the dataset from a trial evaluating ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma. The net survival benefit was then investigated through simulated datasets under typical scenarios of proportional hazards, delayed treatment effect, and cure rate. The net survival benefit test was computed according to the value of the minimal survival difference considered clinically relevant. As comparators, the standard and the weighted log-rank tests were also performed.
RESULTS: In the illustrative dataset, the net survival benefit favored ipilimumab [Δ(0) = 15.8%, 95% confidence interval = 4.6% to 27.3%, P = .006]. This favorable effect was maintained when the analysis was focused on long-term survival differences (eg, >12 months, Δ(12) = 12.5% (95% confidence interval = 4.4% to 20.6%, P = .002). Under the scenarios of a delayed treatment effect and cure rate, the power of the net survival benefit test compared favorably to the standard log-rank test power and was comparable to the power of the weighted log-rank test for large values of the threshold of clinical relevance.
CONCLUSION: The net long-term survival benefit is a measure of treatment effect that is meaningful whether or not hazards are proportional. The associated statistical test is more powerful than the standard log-rank test when a delayed treatment effect is anticipated.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30838402      PMCID: PMC6855951          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  11 in total

1.  Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma.

Authors:  Caroline Robert; Luc Thomas; Igor Bondarenko; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey Weber; Claus Garbe; Celeste Lebbe; Jean-François Baurain; Alessandro Testori; Jean-Jacques Grob; Neville Davidson; Jon Richards; Michele Maio; Axel Hauschild; Wilson H Miller; Pere Gascon; Michal Lotem; Kaan Harmankaya; Ramy Ibrahim; Stephen Francis; Tai-Tsang Chen; Rachel Humphrey; Axel Hoos; Jedd D Wolchok
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-05       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Estimation of treatment effects based on possibly misspecified Cox regression.

Authors:  Satoshi Hattori; Masayuki Henmi
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem.

Authors:  Marc Buyse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Reformulating the hazard ratio to enhance communication with clinical investigators.

Authors:  Marc Buyse
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Authors:  F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Weighted Kaplan-Meier statistics: a class of distance tests for censored survival data.

Authors:  M S Pepe; T R Fleming
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  An extension of generalized pairwise comparisons for prioritized outcomes in the presence of censoring.

Authors:  Julien Péron; Marc Buyse; Brice Ozenne; Laurent Roche; Pascal Roy
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Sample-size formula for the proportional-hazards regression model.

Authors:  D A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  The Net Chance of a Longer Survival as a Patient-Oriented Measure of Treatment Benefit in Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Julien Péron; Pascal Roy; Brice Ozenne; Laurent Roche; Marc Buyse
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology.

Authors:  Tai-Tsang Chen
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 13.751

View more
  2 in total

1.  Methods for Accommodating Nonproportional Hazards in Clinical Trials: Ready for the Primary Analysis?

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Guidelines for clinical evaluation of anti-cancer drugs.

Authors:  Hironobu Minami; Naomi Kiyota; Shiro Kimbara; Yuichi Ando; Tomoya Shimokata; Atsushi Ohtsu; Nozomu Fuse; Yasutoshi Kuboki; Toshio Shimizu; Noboru Yamamoto; Kazuto Nishio; Yutaka Kawakami; Shin-Ichi Nihira; Kazuhiro Sase; Takahiro Nonaka; Hideaki Takahashi; Yukiko Komori; Koshin Kiyohara
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 6.716

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.