Literature DB >> 35838646

Statistical Considerations for Analyses of Time-To-Event Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials: Illustrations with CAR-T Immunotherapy Studies.

Yimei Li1,2,3, Wei-Ting Hwang1, Shannon L Maude2,3, David T Teachey2,3, Noelle V Frey4, Regina M Myers2,3, Allison Barz Leahy2,3, Hongyan Liu5, David L Porter4, Stephan A Grupp2,3, Pamela A Shaw6.   

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is an exciting development in the field of cancer immunology and has received a lot of interest in recent years. Many time-to-event (TTE) endpoints related to relapse, disease progression, and remission are analyzed in CAR-T studies to assess treatment efficacy. Definitions of these TTE endpoints are not always consistent, even for the same outcomes (e.g., progression-free survival), which often stems from analysis choices regarding which events to consider as part of the composite endpoint, censoring or competing risk in the analysis. Subsequent therapies such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are common but are not treated the same in different studies. Standard survival analysis methods are commonly applied to TTE analyses but often without full consideration of the assumptions inherent in the chosen analysis. We highlight two important issues of TTE analysis that arise in CAR-T studies, as well as in other settings in oncology: the handling of competing risks and assessing the association between a time-varying (post-infusion) exposure and the TTE outcome. We review existing analytical methods, including the cumulative incidence function and regression models for analysis of competing risks, and landmark and time-varying covariate analysis for analysis of post-infusion exposures. We clarify the scientific questions that the different analytical approaches address and illustrate how the application of an inappropriate method could lead to different results using data from multiple published CAR-T studies. Codes for implementing these methods in standard statistical software are provided. ©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35838646      PMCID: PMC9481718          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   13.801


  54 in total

Review 1.  Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology.

Authors:  Samy Suissa
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-12-03       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Long-term safety and activity of axicabtagene ciloleucel in refractory large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1-2 trial.

Authors:  Frederick L Locke; Armin Ghobadi; Caron A Jacobson; David B Miklos; Lazaros J Lekakis; Olalekan O Oluwole; Yi Lin; Ira Braunschweig; Brian T Hill; John M Timmerman; Abhinav Deol; Patrick M Reagan; Patrick Stiff; Ian W Flinn; Umar Farooq; Andre Goy; Peter A McSweeney; Javier Munoz; Tanya Siddiqi; Julio C Chavez; Alex F Herrera; Nancy L Bartlett; Jeffrey S Wiezorek; Lynn Navale; Allen Xue; Yizhou Jiang; Adrian Bot; John M Rossi; Jenny J Kim; William Y Go; Sattva S Neelapu
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2018-12-02       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Transplant as a competing risk in the analysis of dialysis patients.

Authors:  Nan van Geloven; Saskia le Cessie; Friedo W Dekker; Hein Putter
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 5.992

4.  Optimizing Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Adults With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Authors:  Noelle V Frey; Pamela A Shaw; Elizabeth O Hexner; Edward Pequignot; Saar Gill; Selina M Luger; James K Mangan; Alison W Loren; Alexander E Perl; Shannon L Maude; Stephan A Grupp; Nirav N Shah; Joan Gilmore; Simon F Lacey; Jos J Melenhorst; Bruce L Levine; Carl H June; David L Porter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Applying Cox regression to competing risks.

Authors:  M Lunn; D McNeil
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Considerations for analysis of time-to-event outcomes subject to competing risks in veterinary clinical studies.

Authors:  Mark A Oyama; Pamela A Shaw; Susan S Ellenberg
Journal:  J Vet Cardiol       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 1.701

7.  Sample sizes for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints and competing risks.

Authors:  Gabi Schulgen; Manfred Olschewski; Vera Krane; Christoph Wanner; Günther Ruf; Martin Schumacher
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-04-26       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Disease Burden Affects Outcomes in Pediatric and Young Adult B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia After Commercial Tisagenlecleucel: A Pediatric Real-World Chimeric Antigen Receptor Consortium Report.

Authors:  Liora M Schultz; Christina Baggott; Snehit Prabhu; Holly L Pacenta; Christine L Phillips; Jenna Rossoff; Heather E Stefanski; Julie-An Talano; Amy Moskop; Steven P Margossian; Michael R Verneris; Gary Douglas Myers; Nicole A Karras; Patrick A Brown; Muna Qayed; Michelle Hermiston; Prakash Satwani; Christa Krupski; Amy K Keating; Rachel Wilcox; Cara A Rabik; Vanessa A Fabrizio; Rayne H Rouce; Vasant Chinnabhandar; Michael Kunicki; Valentin V Barsan; A Yasemin Goksenin; Yimei Li; Sharon Mavroukakis; Emily Egeler; Kevin J Curran; Crystal L Mackall; Theodore W Laetsch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 50.717

9.  Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data.

Authors:  Bryan Lau; Stephen R Cole; Stephen J Gange
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Long-Term Follow-up of CD19 CAR Therapy in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Authors:  Jae H Park; Isabelle Rivière; Mithat Gonen; Xiuyan Wang; Brigitte Sénéchal; Kevin J Curran; Craig Sauter; Yongzeng Wang; Bianca Santomasso; Elena Mead; Mikhail Roshal; Peter Maslak; Marco Davila; Renier J Brentjens; Michel Sadelain
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.