Cargando…

Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVE: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled analysis of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burzykowski, Tomasz, Coart, Elisabeth, Saad, Everardo D., Shi, Qian, Sommeijer, Dirkje W., Bokemeyer, Carsten, Díaz-Rubio, Eduardo, Douillard, Jean-Yves, Falcone, Alfredo, Fuchs, Charles S., Goldberg, Richard M., Hecht, J. Randolph, Hoff, Paulo M., Hurwitz, Herbert, Kabbinavar, Fairooz F., Koopman, Miriam, Maughan, Timothy S., Punt, Cornelis J. A., Saltz, Leonard, Schmoll, Hans-Joachim, Seymour, Matthew T., Tebbutt, Niall C., Tournigand, Christophe, Van Cutsem, Eric, de Gramont, Aimery, Zalcberg, John R., Buyse, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6755539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31539075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11750
_version_ 1783453253177966592
author Burzykowski, Tomasz
Coart, Elisabeth
Saad, Everardo D.
Shi, Qian
Sommeijer, Dirkje W.
Bokemeyer, Carsten
Díaz-Rubio, Eduardo
Douillard, Jean-Yves
Falcone, Alfredo
Fuchs, Charles S.
Goldberg, Richard M.
Hecht, J. Randolph
Hoff, Paulo M.
Hurwitz, Herbert
Kabbinavar, Fairooz F.
Koopman, Miriam
Maughan, Timothy S.
Punt, Cornelis J. A.
Saltz, Leonard
Schmoll, Hans-Joachim
Seymour, Matthew T.
Tebbutt, Niall C.
Tournigand, Christophe
Van Cutsem, Eric
de Gramont, Aimery
Zalcberg, John R.
Buyse, Marc
author_facet Burzykowski, Tomasz
Coart, Elisabeth
Saad, Everardo D.
Shi, Qian
Sommeijer, Dirkje W.
Bokemeyer, Carsten
Díaz-Rubio, Eduardo
Douillard, Jean-Yves
Falcone, Alfredo
Fuchs, Charles S.
Goldberg, Richard M.
Hecht, J. Randolph
Hoff, Paulo M.
Hurwitz, Herbert
Kabbinavar, Fairooz F.
Koopman, Miriam
Maughan, Timothy S.
Punt, Cornelis J. A.
Saltz, Leonard
Schmoll, Hans-Joachim
Seymour, Matthew T.
Tebbutt, Niall C.
Tournigand, Christophe
Van Cutsem, Eric
de Gramont, Aimery
Zalcberg, John R.
Buyse, Marc
author_sort Burzykowski, Tomasz
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVE: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti–epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size–weighted coefficients of determination (R(2)), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS. RESULTS: For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R(2) value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R(2) were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti–epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R(2) were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6755539
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67555392019-10-07 Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Burzykowski, Tomasz Coart, Elisabeth Saad, Everardo D. Shi, Qian Sommeijer, Dirkje W. Bokemeyer, Carsten Díaz-Rubio, Eduardo Douillard, Jean-Yves Falcone, Alfredo Fuchs, Charles S. Goldberg, Richard M. Hecht, J. Randolph Hoff, Paulo M. Hurwitz, Herbert Kabbinavar, Fairooz F. Koopman, Miriam Maughan, Timothy S. Punt, Cornelis J. A. Saltz, Leonard Schmoll, Hans-Joachim Seymour, Matthew T. Tebbutt, Niall C. Tournigand, Christophe Van Cutsem, Eric de Gramont, Aimery Zalcberg, John R. Buyse, Marc JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVE: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti–epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size–weighted coefficients of determination (R(2)), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS. RESULTS: For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R(2) value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R(2) were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti–epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R(2) were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. American Medical Association 2019-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6755539/ /pubmed/31539075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11750 Text en Copyright 2019 Burzykowski T et al. JAMA Network Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Burzykowski, Tomasz
Coart, Elisabeth
Saad, Everardo D.
Shi, Qian
Sommeijer, Dirkje W.
Bokemeyer, Carsten
Díaz-Rubio, Eduardo
Douillard, Jean-Yves
Falcone, Alfredo
Fuchs, Charles S.
Goldberg, Richard M.
Hecht, J. Randolph
Hoff, Paulo M.
Hurwitz, Herbert
Kabbinavar, Fairooz F.
Koopman, Miriam
Maughan, Timothy S.
Punt, Cornelis J. A.
Saltz, Leonard
Schmoll, Hans-Joachim
Seymour, Matthew T.
Tebbutt, Niall C.
Tournigand, Christophe
Van Cutsem, Eric
de Gramont, Aimery
Zalcberg, John R.
Buyse, Marc
Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title_full Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title_fullStr Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title_short Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
title_sort evaluation of continuous tumor-size–based end points as surrogates for overall survival in randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6755539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31539075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11750
work_keys_str_mv AT burzykowskitomasz evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT coartelisabeth evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT saadeverardod evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT shiqian evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT sommeijerdirkjew evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT bokemeyercarsten evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT diazrubioeduardo evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT douillardjeanyves evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT falconealfredo evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT fuchscharless evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT goldbergrichardm evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT hechtjrandolph evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT hoffpaulom evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT hurwitzherbert evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT kabbinavarfairoozf evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT koopmanmiriam evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT maughantimothys evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT puntcornelisja evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT saltzleonard evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT schmollhansjoachim evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT seymourmatthewt evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT tebbuttniallc evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT tournigandchristophe evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT vancutsemeric evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT degramontaimery evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT zalcbergjohnr evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT buysemarc evaluationofcontinuoustumorsizebasedendpointsassurrogatesforoverallsurvivalinrandomizedclinicaltrialsinmetastaticcolorectalcancer