Background: Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as “surrogates” to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS–derived CBS. Methods: Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS–derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman’s correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS–derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS–derived CBS. Results: CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS–derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70–0.86), 0.38 (0.20–0.53), 0.20 (0.00–0.38), and 0.01 (–0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS–, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS–, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS–derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS–derived CBS.
You are looking at 31 - 40 of 2,779 items
Sierra Cheng, Matthew C. Cheung, Di Maria Jiang, Erica McDonald, Vanessa S. Arciero, Doreen Anuli Ezeife, Amanda Rahmadian, Alexandra Chambers, Kelley-Anne Sabarre, Ambika Parmar and Kelvin K.W. Chan
Joyce Valerie Veld, Femke Julie Amelung, Wernard Aat Antoine Borstlap, Emo Eise van Halsema, Esther Catharina Josephina Consten, Peter Derk Siersema, Frank ter Borg, Edwin Silvester van der Zaag, Paul Fockens, Willem Adrianus Bemelman, Jeanin Elise van Hooft, Pieter Job Tanis and for the Dutch Snapshot Research Group
Background: Previous analysis of Dutch practice in treatment of left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC) until 2012 showed that emergency resection (ER) was preferred, with high mortality in patients aged ≥70 years. Consequently, Dutch and European guidelines in 2014 recommended a bridge to surgery (BTS) with either self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or decompressing stoma (DS) in high-risk patients. The implementation and effects of these guidelines have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, our aim was to perform an in-depth update of national practice concerning curative treatment of LSOCC, including an evaluation of guideline implementation. Patients and Methods: This multicenter cohort study was conducted in 75 of 77 hospitals in the Netherlands. We included data on patients who underwent curative resection of LSOCC in 2009 through 2016 obtained from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 2,587 patients were included (2,013 ER, 345 DS, and 229 SEMS). A trend was observed in reversal of ER (decrease from 86.2% to 69.6%) and SEMS (increase from 1.3% to 7.8%) after 2014, with an ongoing increase in DS (from 5.2% in 2009 to 22.7% in 2016). DS after 2014 was associated with more laparoscopic resections (66.0% vs 35.5%; P<.001) and more 2-stage procedures (41.5% vs 28.6%; P=.01) with fewer permanent stomas (14.7% vs 29.5%; P=.005). Overall, more laparoscopic resections (25.4% vs 13.2%; P<.001) and shorter total hospital stays (14 vs 15 days; P<.001) were observed after 2014. However, similar rates of primary anastomosis (48.7% vs 48.6%; P=.961), 90-day complications (40.4% vs 37.9%; P=.254), and 90-day mortality (6.5% vs 7.0%; P=.635) were observed. Conclusions: Guideline revision resulted in a notable change from ER to BTS for LSOCC. This was accompanied by an increased rate of laparoscopic resections, more 2-stage procedures with a decreased permanent stoma rate in patients receiving DS as BTS, and a shorter total hospital stay. However, overall 90-day complication and mortality rates remained relatively high.
Ali Raza Khaki, V.K. Gadi and Vinay Prasad
Lucas K. Vitzthum, Chris Straka, Reith R. Sarkar, Rana McKay, J. Michael Randall, Ajay Sandhu, James D. Murphy and Brent S. Rose
Background: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy to radiation therapy (RT) improves survival in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is not known whether combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-A) and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen improves survival over GnRH-A monotherapy. Methods: This study evaluated patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa diagnosed in 2001 through 2015 who underwent RT with either GnRH-A alone or CAB using the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Associations between CAB and prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) were determined using multivariable regression with Fine-Gray and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. For a positive control, the effect of long-term versus short-term GnRH-A therapy was tested. Results: The cohort included 8,423 men (GnRH-A, 4,529; CAB, 3,894) with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. There were 1,861 deaths, including 349 resulting from PCa. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of PCSM at 10 years were 5.9% and 6.9% for those receiving GnRH-A and CAB, respectively (P=.16). Compared with GnRH-A alone, CAB was not associated with a significant difference in covariate-adjusted PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85–1.30) or OS (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93–1.12). For high-risk patients, long-term versus short-term GnRH-A therapy was associated with improved PCSM (SHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.95) and OS (SHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.93). Conclusions: In men receiving definitive RT for intermediate- or high-risk PCa, CAB was not associated with improved PCSM or OS compared with GnRH alone.