RESUMO
The diversity of patient journeys can raise fundamental questions regarding the evaluation of drug effects in clinical trials to inform clinical practice. When defining the treatment effect of interest in a trial, the researcher needs to account for events occurring after treatment initiation, such as the start of a new therapy, before observing the end point. We review the newly introduced estimand framework to structure discussions on the relationship between patient journeys and the treatment effect of interest in oncology trials. In 2017, the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use released a draft addendum to its E9 guideline. The addendum introduces the concept of an estimand to precisely describe the treatment effect of interest. This estimand framework provides a structured approach to discuss how to account for intercurrent events that occur after random assignment and may affect the assessment or interpretation of the treatment effect. The framework is expected to improve coherence between trial objectives, design, analysis, and interpretation, as illustrated by examples in oncology disease settings. The estimand framework was applied to design a trial for a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. The treatment effect of interest was carefully defined considering the range of patient journeys expected for this particular indication and treatment. The trial design was developed accordingly to assess that treatment effect. All parties involved in the design of clinical trials need to consider possible patient journeys to define appropriate treatment effects and corresponding trial designs and analysis strategies. The estimand framework provides a common language to address the complexity introduced by varied patient journeys.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This phase III study was designed to demonstrate equivalence in survival of oral uracil/tegafur (UFT) and oral leucovorin (LV) to conventional intravenous (IV) fluorouracil (5-FU) and LV in previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Safety was also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred sixteen patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (75 or 90 mg/d) for 28 days every 35 days or IV bolus 5-FU (425 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (20 mg/m(2)/d) for 5 days every 28 days. RESULTS: UFT/LV produced survival comparable to the IV 5-FU/LV regimen. Median survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2 to 13.6 months) with UFT/LV and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 15.4 months) with 5-FU/LV (P =.630). The hazard ratio for survival was 0.964 (95.6% CI, 0.826 to 1.125), supporting equivalent survival. The overall response rate did not differ between treatment arms (UFT/LV, 11.7%; 5-FU/LV, 14.5%; P =.232). Median time to progression favored 5-FU/LV (UFT/LV, 3.5 months; 5-FU/LV, 3.8 months; P =.011), but tumor assessment schedules differed between arms. UFT/LV significantly improved safety compared with 5-FU/LV. Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and stomatitis and mucositis were significantly less frequent with UFT/LV, as was myelosuppression. Patients treated with UFT/LV had fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and documented infections (P <.05). Increased bilirubin, without other liver function abnormalities, was observed more often with UFT/LV (P <.001). Concomitant medications were more frequent with 5-FU/LV, including use of antibiotics, growth factors, and antiemetics. CONCLUSION: UFT/LV provided a safer, more convenient oral alternative to a standard bolus IV 5-FU/LV regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer while producing equivalent survival.
