Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
Open Access
- 19 September 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
- Vol. 5 (1) , 72
Abstract
Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatment and lasting ≥6 months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. Methods We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). Results Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9 months (HR = 0.07; P = 0.0003), 12 months (HR = 0.05, P < 0.0001), and 18 months (HR = 0.11; P = 0.0002) that persisted after adjusting for disease stage and line of therapy. Achieving a DR was associated with a longer median TFI (HR = 0.33; P = 0.0007) and a higher TOI improvement rate (58.1% versus 30.0%; P = 0.025). Conclusions Achieving a DR was associated with clinical benefits such as improved OS and QoL and prolonged TFI, thus supporting the usefulness of DR as a meaningful immunotherapy clinical trial endpoint. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00769704 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769704) October 7, 2008Keywords
Funding Information
- Amgen Inc.
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chemotherapy for Melanoma2015
- When Progressive Disease Does Not Mean Treatment Failure: Reconsidering the Criteria for ProgressionJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012
- Safety, Activity, and Immune Correlates of Anti–PD-1 Antibody in CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic MelanomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Guidelines for the Evaluation of Immune Therapy Activity in Solid Tumors: Immune-Related Response CriteriaClinical Cancer Research, 2009
- Phase 1/2 study of subcutaneous and intradermal immunization with a recombinant MAGE-3 protein in patients with detectable metastatic melanomaInternational Journal of Cancer, 2005
- Using Multiple Anchor- and Distribution-Based Estimates to Evaluate Clinically Meaningful Change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) InstrumentValue in Health, 2005
- ICP34.5 deleted herpes simplex virus with enhanced oncolytic, immune stimulating, and anti-tumour propertiesGene Therapy, 2003
- What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire?Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2002
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000