Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology

Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

Tai-Tsang Chen¹ 

[1] Department of Global Biometric Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA

关键词: Immune-mediated adverse reactions;    Immune-related adverse events;    Immune-related response criteria;    Group sequential method;    Delayed clinical effect;    Long term survivors;    Study design;    Immunotherapy;   

Others  :  812715
DOI  :  10.1186/2051-1426-1-18

 received in 2013-07-26, accepted in 2013-09-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The development of immuno-oncologic agents poses unique challenges, namely that both efficacy and safety profiles differ from previously characterized cytotoxic and pathway-specific agents. In addition, exponential distribution is usually assumed in study designs with time-to-event endpoints such as overall survival or progression-free survival. This assumption might lead to wrong estimates of study duration and statistical power if the phenomena of long term survival and delayed clinical effects are present. The aim here was to evaluate the magnitude of the impact caused by the violation of this assumption, and to describe new ways of analyzing efficacy and safety of immuno-oncologic agents.

Methods

Monte Carlo simulation was implemented to explore the impact of long term survivors and delayed treatment effect on study power and trial duration. Scenarios with various combinations of long term and delayed treatment effects were considered. Study power and duration were evaluated based on 10000 randomly generated trial data sets. The utility of group sequential study designs was discussed. A new set of immune-related response criteria (irRC) was considered for efficacy analysis. Two new methods for identifying adverse events, termed immune-related adverse events (irAE) and immune-mediated adverse reactions (imAR) were described. The key features of the safety profiles derived using these two methods were similar. Both methods were aimed at identifying inflammatory adverse events caused by immunotherapies.

Results

The presence of long term survivors usually lengthened the study duration. Depending on the treatment effect post survival curve separation, delayed clinical effect in general led to a loss of power. The irRC offered a new way of identifying clinical responses. Both safety analyses demonstrated higher sensitivity of identifying adverse events of immune system origin.

Conclusion

This simulation study showed the importance of accounting for the delayed treatment effect and long term survivors when these phenomena were expected. Interim analyses for the purpose of stopping the study for either positive or futile outcome should be implemented with caution in immuno-oncology trials. The new efficacy analysis offered a potential new way of assessing signs of activity in immunotherapies. While the irAE method facilitated prompt and effective management of adverse events, the imAR method captured truly immune-related events.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Chen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Melero I, Hervas-Stubbs S, Glenne M, Pardoll DM, Chen L: Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2007, 7:95-106.
• [2]Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, et al.: Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010, 363(8):711-723.
• [3]Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, O’Day S, Weber J, et al.: Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(26):2517-2526.
• [4]Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets D: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd Ed. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.; 1998.
• [5]Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, Negrier S, Lutzky J, et al.: Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11(2):155-164.
• [6]Sosman JA, Unger JM, Liu PY, Flaherty LE, Park M S, et al.: Adjuvant immunotherapy of resected, intermediate thickness, node-negative melanoma with an allogeneic tumor vaccine: impact of, HLA class I antigen expression on outcome. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20(8):2067-2075.
• [7]Small EJ, Schellhammer PF, Higano CS, et al.: Placebo-controlled phase, III trial of immunologic therapy with sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24(19):3089-3094.
• [8]Fine GD: Consequences of delayed treatment effects on analysis of time-to-event endpoints. Drug Inf J 2007, 41:535-539.
• [9]Schwartzentruber DJ, Lawson DH, Richards JM, Conry RM, Miller D M, et al.: gp100 peptide vaccine and interleukin-2 in patients with advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(22):2119-2127.
• [10]Kirkwood JM, Strawderman MH, Ernstoff MS, Smith TJ, Borden EC, Blum RH: Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial EST 1684. J Clin Oncol 1996, 14(1):7-17.
• [11]Kirkwood JM, Ibrahim JG, Sondak VK, Richards J, Flaherty LE, Ernstoff MS, et al.: High- and low-dose interferon alfa-2b in high-risk melanoma: first analysis of intergroup trial, E1690/S9111/C9190. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18(12):2444-2458.
• [12]Eggermont AMM, Suciu S, Testori A, Santinami M, Kruit WHJ, et al.: Long-term results of the randomized phase, III trial EORTC 18991 of adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation in resected stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30(31):3810-3818.
• [13]Psyrri A, Kwong M, DiStasio S, Lekakis L, Kassar M, et al.: Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent cisplatin chemoradiotherapy for organ preservation and cure in patients with advanced head and neck cancer: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(15):3061-3069.
• [14]Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Garcia-Manero G, Faderl S, Ranvandi F, et al.: Very long-term follow-up results of imatinib mesylate therapy in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of interferon alpha therapy. Cancer 2012, 118(12):3116-3122.
• [15]Rea D, Vellenga E, Junghanß C, Baccarani M, Kantargian H, et al.: Six-year follow-up of patients with imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) receiving dasatinib [0199]. Haematologica 2012, 97:s1.
• [16]Maio M, Bondarenko I, Robert C, Thomas L, Garbe C, et al.: Four-year survival update for metastatic melanoma (MM) patients (pts) treated with ipilimumab (IPI) + dacarbazine (DTIC) on phase 3 study, CA184-024 [1127P]. Ann Oncol 2012, 23:s9.
• [17]Lebbe C, Weber JS, Maio M, Neyns B, Harmankaya K, et al.: Five-year survival rates for patients (Pts) with metastatic melanoma (MM) treated with ipilimumab (IPI) in phase, II trials [1116PD]. Ann Oncol 2012, 23:s9.
• [18]Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, Punt CJA, Haanen JB, et al.: Phase, III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31(5):616-622.
• [19]O’Brien PC, Fleming TR: A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979, 35(3):549-556.
• [20]Pocock SJ: Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977, 64(2):191-199.
• [21]Lan K, DeMets D: Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 1983, 70:659-663.
• [22]Pampallona S, Tsiatis A, Kim KM: Interim monitoring of group sequential trials using spending functions for the type I and II error probabilities. Drug Inf J 2001, 35:1113-1121.
• [23]World Health Organization Offset Publication No.48: WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.; 1979.
• [24]Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, et al.: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92(3):205-216.
• [25]Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, et al.: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised, RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009, 45(2):228-247.
• [26]Weber J, Thompson JA, Hamid O, Minor D, Amin A, et al.: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase, II study comparing the tolerability and efficacy of ipilimumab administered with or without prophylactic budesonide in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15(17):5591-5598.
• [27]O’Day SJ, Maio M, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gajewski TF, Pehamberger H, et al.: Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single-arm phase, II study. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:1712-1717.
• [28]Margolin K, Ernstoff MS, Hamid O, Lawrence D, McDermott D, et al.: Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: an open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012, 12(5):459-465.
• [29]Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, et al.: Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15(23):7412-7420.
• [30]The Yervoy (Ipilimumab) Summary of Product Characteristics http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002213/WC500109299.pdf webcite
• [31]The Yervoy (Ipilimumab) US Package Insert http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/125377s044lbl.pdf webcite
• [32]Kuk AYC, Chen CH: A mixture model combining logistic regression with proportional hazards regression. Biometrika 1992, 79:531-541.
• [33]Sy JP, Taylor JMG: Estimation in a cox proportional hazards cure model. Biometrics 2000, 56:227-236.
• [34]Peng Y, Dear KBG: A nonparametric mixture model for cure rate estimation. Biometrics 2000, 56:237-243.
• [35]Farewell VT: The use of mixture models for the analysis of survival data with long-term survivors. Biometrics 1982, 38:1041-1046.
• [36]Harrington DP, Fleming TR: A class of rank test procedures for censored survival data. Biometrika 1982, 69:553-566.
• [37]Fleming TR, Harrington DP: Counting Processes and Survival Analysis. New York: John Wiley; 1991.