A novel approach to visualize clinical benefit of therapies for chronic graft versus host disease (cGvHD): the probability of being in response (PBR) applied to the REACH3 study.

Overall response rate (ORR) is commonly used as key endpoint to assess treatment efficacy of chronic graft versus host disease (cGvHD), either as ORR at week 24 or as best overall response rate (BOR) at any time point up to week 24 or beyond. Both endpoints as well as duration of response (DOR) were previously reported for the REACH3 study, a phase 3 open-label, randomized study comparing ruxolitinib (RUX) versus best available therapy (BAT). The comparison between RUX and BAT was performed on ORR and BOR using all randomized patients, while DOR was derived for the subgroup of responders only. Here we illustrate the application of the probability of being in response (PBR), a graphical method presenting simultaneously the time to first response and subsequent failure using all randomized patients. In REACH3, PBR showed an earlier time to first response, a higher probability of being in response and a longer duration of response for RUX compared to BAT. PBR is a clinically easily interpretable measurement and can serve as a novel efficacy endpoint to assess treatments for chronic graft versus host disease.

Ruxolitinib for Glucocorticoid-Refractory Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a major complication of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation, becomes glucocorticoid-refractory or glucocorticoid-dependent in approximately 50% of patients. Robust data from phase 3 randomized studies evaluating second-line therapy for chronic GVHD are lacking. In retrospective surveys, ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK1-JAK2) inhibitor, showed potential efficacy in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD. METHODS: This phase 3 open-label, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, as compared with the investigator's choice of therapy from a list of 10 commonly used options considered best available care (control), in patients 12 years of age or older with moderate or severe glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD. The primary end point was overall response (complete or partial response) at week 24; key secondary end points were failure-free survival and improved score on the modified Lee Symptom Scale at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 329 patients underwent randomization; 165 patients were assigned to receive ruxolitinib and 164 patients to receive control therapy. Overall response at week 24 was greater in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (49.7% vs. 25.6%; odds ratio, 2.99; P<0.001). Ruxolitinib led to longer median failure-free survival than control (>18.6 months vs. 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.37; P<0.001) and higher symptom response (24.2% vs. 11.0%; odds ratio, 2.62; P = 0.001). The most common (occurring in ≥10% patients) adverse events of grade 3 or higher up to week 24 were thrombocytopenia (15.2% in the ruxolitinib group and 10.1% in the control group) and anemia (12.7% and 7.6%, respectively). The incidence of cytomegalovirus infections and reactivations was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD, ruxolitinib led to significantly greater overall response, failure-free survival, and symptom response. The incidence of thrombocytopenia and anemia was greater with ruxolitinib. (Funded by Novartis and Incyte; REACH3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112603.).

Quantitative assessment of adverse events in clinical trials: Comparison of methods at an interim and the final analysis.

In clinical study reports (CSRs), adverse events (AEs) are commonly summarized using the incidence proportion (IP). IPs can be calculated for all types of AEs and are often interpreted as the probability that a treated patient experiences specific AEs. Exposure time can be taken into account with time-to-event methods. Using one minus Kaplan-Meier (1-KM) is known to overestimate the AE probability in the presence of competing events (CEs). The use of a nonparametric estimator of the cumulative incidence function (CIF) has therefore been advocated as more appropriate. In this paper, we compare different methods to estimate the probability of one selected AE. In particular, we investigate whether the proposed methods provide a reasonable estimate of the AE probability at an interim analysis (IA). The characteristics of the methods in the presence of a CE are illustrated using data from a breast cancer study and we quantify the potential bias in a simulation study. At the final analysis performed for the CSR, 1-KM systematically overestimates and in most cases IP slightly underestimates the given AE probability. CIF has the lowest bias in most simulation scenarios. All methods might lead to biased estimates at the IA except for AEs with early onset. The magnitude of the bias varies with the time-to-AE and/or CE occurrence, the selection of event-specific hazards and the amount of censoring. In general, reporting AE probabilities for prespecified fixed time points is recommended.

Impact of ruxolitinib on the natural history of primary myelofibrosis: a comparison of the DIPSS and the COMFORT-2 cohorts.

The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) provides reliable risk assessment in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF). Recent clinical trials in PMF patients with intermediate-2 or high IPSS risk have shown a survival advantage of ruxolitinib over placebo (COMFORT-1) or best available therapy (COMFORT-2). Because crossover was allowed in these studies, we analyzed the cohort of ruxolitinib-naive patients used for developing the dynamic IPSS (DIPSS). By adopting ad hoc statistical analyses, we compared survival from diagnosis of 100 PMF patients receiving ruxolitinib within COMFORT-2 with that of 350 patients of the DIPSS study. Subjects were properly matched, and both left-truncation and right-censoring were accounted in order to compare higher IPSS risks exclusively. Patients receiving ruxolitinib had longer survival (5 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9-7.8 vs 3.5 years, 95% CI: 3.0-3.9) with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41-0.91; P = .0148). This observation suggests that ruxolitinib may modify the natural history of PMF.

Dynamic tumor modeling of the dose-response relationship for everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma using data from the phase 3 RECORD-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 RECORD-1 trial (NCT00410124) established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progress on sunitinib or sorafenib. In RECORD-1, patients received 10 mg everolimus daily, with dose reduction to 5 mg daily allowed for toxicity. We have developed a model of tumor growth dynamics utilizing serial measurements of the sum of the longest tumor diameters (SLD) from individual RECORD-1 patients to define the dose-response relationship of everolimus. RESULTS: The model predicts that after 1 year of continuous dosing, the change in SLD of target lesions will be +142.1% ± 98.3%, +22.4% ± 17.2%, and -15.7% ± 11.5% in the average patient treated with placebo, 5 mg everolimus, and 10 mg everolimus, respectively. This nonlinear, mixed-effects modeling approach can be used to describe the dynamics of each individual patient, as well as the overall population. This allows evaluation of how an actual dosing history and individual covariates impact on the observed drug effect, and offers the possibility of predicting clinical observations as a function of time. CONCLUSIONS: In this pharmacodynamic model of tumor response, everolimus more effectively shrinks target lesions in mRCC when dosed 10 mg daily versus 5 mg daily, although a 5-mg dose still shows an antitumor effect. These data support earlier studies that established 10 mg daily as the preferred clinical dose of everolimus, and improve our understanding of the everolimus dose-response relationship.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase iii study of everolimus versus placebo in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the kidney that has progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

PURPOSE: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The focus of this paper is to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral everolimus 10 mg once daily or placebo. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) and European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 were administered before randomization and on day 1 of each cycle. The FKSI-DRS and the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning and Global Quality of Life scores were the primary endpoints examined. Longitudinal models were used to compare treatment arms. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data assumptions. RESULTS: Longitudinal trends for FKSI-DRS scores did not differ by treatment arm. Taking nonignorable missing data into account, there were significant differences between treatment arms in the trend over time for physical functioning and global quality of life, with the everolimus arm exhibiting greater decreases. All three of these measures of health-related quality of life were significantly related to progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between everolimus and placebo in longitudinal patterns of disease-related symptoms, and little difference between the arms in physical functioning or global quality of life trends. This supports the conclusion that delay in tumor progression demonstrated by everolimus is associated with minimal impact on symptoms, physical functioning, or quality of life, as reported by patients.

A proof of concept phase II non-inferiority criterion.

Traditional phase III non-inferiority trials require compelling evidence that the treatment vs control effect bfθ is better than a pre-specified non-inferiority margin θ(NI) . The standard approach compares this margin to the 95 per cent confidence interval of the effect parameter. In the phase II setting, in order to declare Proof of Concept (PoC) for non-inferiority and proceed in the development of the drug, different criteria that are specifically tailored toward company internal decision making may be more appropriate. For example, less evidence may be needed as long as the effect estimate is reasonably convincing. We propose a non-inferiority design that addresses the specifics of the phase II setting. The requirements are that (1) the effect estimate be better than a critical threshold θ(C), and (2) the type I error with regard to θ(NI) is controlled at a pre-specified level. This design is compared with the traditional design from a frequentist as well as a Bayesian perspective, where the latter relies on the Level of Proof (LoP) metric, i.e. the probability that the true effect is better than effect values of interest. Clinical input is required to establish the value θ(C), which makes the design transparent and improves interactions within clinical teams. The proposed design is illustrated for a non-inferiority trial for a time-to-event endpoint in oncology.

Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma : final results and analysis of prognostic factors.

BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N = 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 277) or placebo (n = 139) plus best supportive care. Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double-blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank-preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in ≥ 5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P = .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank-preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9-fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5-8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib.

Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. METHODS: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00410124. FINDINGS: All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 [37%] events in the everolimus group, 90 [65%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, p<0.0001; median progression-free survival 4.0 [95% CI 3.7-5.5] vs 1.9 [1.8-1.9] months). Stomatitis (107 [40%] patients in the everolimus group vs 11 [8%] in the placebo group), rash (66 [25%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (53 [20%] vs 22 [16%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies.