Cheaper, Faster, Better: Chasing the Elusive Clinical Trial End Point

Cancer clinical trialists perennially seek to use end points in trials that are objective, easily measured and, if not the definitive end point of interest, are at least highly predictive of a definitive outcome. Researchers have been on a persistent quest to identify shorter-term, easier to measure, more frequent event-driven end points such as tumor response, biochemical failure, or other markers of disease progression as surrogate measures for definitive outcomes such as overall survival (OS). Evidence for this long-term ongoing pursuit can be traced back to the subject of an article that appeared in the first issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) by Anderson et al The authors illustrated the bias-ridden and then more common reporting of tumor response–specific survival. They presented the landmark method that corrects for biases by fixing the time point for the determination of tumor status and enumerating cumulative person-time and events from that point forward. An alternative was to use tumor status as a time-dependent covariate and to count person-time from the beginning of treatment, and then to switch patients from a nonresponder designation to responder designation at the time of tumor response. Simon and Makuch proposed a method that combines the landmark and time-dependent covariate approaches. Without appropriate adjustment, any early event that is used to predict a definitive outcome will be biased. A recent review can be found by Anderson et al. For the design of a clinical trial, surrogate end points may be the only practical measures that can be used when definitive events occur infrequently. In oncology, these situations arise when the focus is on the evaluation of rare malignancies, small clinically defined subgroups, or when the end point of interest occurs at a low event rate. In this issue of JCO, Halabi et al present an analysis of the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival for men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Establishing a historical cohort of 1,296 men treated on nine multi-institutional Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocols during the years 1991 to 2004, the cohort included men who had progressed while being treated on androgen deprivation therapy alone but were otherwise not exposed to treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or nonhormonal therapy. This cohort had a relatively long median survival of approximately 20 months. From a planning perspective, such a long median survival reduces the feasibility of using OS as a primary definitive clinical trial end point for this clinically defined subset of men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. The authors evaluated the relationship between OS as the primary end point and secondary end points, including progression-free survival (PFS) and biochemical progression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Simple failure measures such as biochemical failure plus death, as well as more complex indicators of treatment failure (a combination of signs of progression such as radiographic evidence of bone, lung, liver, nodes, or soft tissue progression, or PSA progression) plus death, occur with greater frequency than death alone and therefore may be more suitable to reduce the time required to conduct a clinical trial. The authors assessed the relationship between OS and alternative measures of disease progression. Appropriate landmark analyses were conducted comparing OS across groups defined as having experienced progression at 3and 6-month time points, or by groups defined by biochemical failure at 3and 6-month time points. Covariate adjustment for known prognostic factors was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. A subgroup analysis was performed for the men who received docetaxel on their treatment protocol with similar findings. Halabi et al found that PFS was significantly associated with OS. The magnitude of the association between 3-month PFS and OS, measured by the proportional hazard ratio (PHR) after covariate adjustment was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.4). Thus, men who had evidence of disease progression were twice as likely to die. Using the 6-month PFS criterion, the PHR was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.4). The association between PFS and OS was 0.30 (Kendall’s , a measure of association which ranges between 1.0 for perfect agreement, 0.0 for no agreement, to 1.0 for perfect disagreement). There are some practical questions that arise in interpreting the findings. What is the clinical impact of demonstrating that patients who have experienced progression at 3 or 6 months have roughly double the mortality rate (PHR 2.0)? Although statistically significant, early failure measured by PFS is a much less than perfect indicator of subsequent death. What does the association between PFS and OS of 0.30 (Kendall’s ) mean? The magnitude of agreement between PFS and OS did not even approach a value of 1.0. Scher et al examined the association between PFS and OS in a castrate-metastatic prostate cancer cohort enrolled on three consecutive trials of microtubule-targeted cytotoxic agents from a single institution. The major results of Scher et al are consistent with those reported by Halabi et al. For the association with OS, Scher et al reported Kendall’s 0.40 for radiographic imaging-determined PFS, and Kendall’s 0.33 for PSA-determined PFS. There were several potential explanations for low Kendall’s values. Evidence for progression is determined at fixed time points (eg, 3-month intervals for imaging or 1-month intervals for PSA) leading JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 27 NUMBER 17 JUNE 1