Protocol for a systematic review with prospective individual patient data meta-analysis in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with brain metastases to assess the effect of SRS+osimertinib compared to osimertinib alone: the STARLET Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are a heterogeneous population who often develop brain metastases (BM). The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic brain metastases is unclear given the activity of newer-generation targeted therapies in the central nervous system. We present a protocol for an individual patient data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis to evaluate whether the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) before osimertinib treatment will lead to better control of intracranial metastatic disease. This is a clinically relevant question that will inform practice. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials will be eligible if they include participants with BM arising from EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suitable to receive osimertinib both in the first-line and second-line settings (P); comparisons of SRS followed by osimertinib versus osimertinib alone (I, C) and intracranial disease control included as an endpoint (O). Systematic searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform's Search Portal will be undertaken. An IPD meta-analysis will be performed using methodologies recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome is intracranial progression-free survival, as determined by response assessment in neuro-oncology-BM criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, time to whole brain radiotherapy, quality of life, and adverse events of special interest. Effect differences will be explored among prespecified subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by each trial's ethics committee. Results will be relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers and patients, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022330532.

A Phase II trial of alternating osimertinib and gefitinib therapy in advanced EGFR-T790M positive non-small cell lung cancer: OSCILLATE.

In this phase II, single arm trial (ACTRN12617000720314), we investigate if alternating osimertinib and gefitinib would delay the development of resistance to osimertinib in advanced, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation (n = 47) by modulating selective pressure on resistant clones. The primary endpoint is progression free-survival (PFS) rate at 12 months, and secondary endpoints include: feasibility of alternating therapy, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. The 12-month PFS rate is 38% (95% CI 27.5-55), not meeting the pre-specified primary endpoint. Serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis reveals decrease and clearance of the original activating EGFR and EGFR-T790M mutations which are prognostic of clinical outcomes. In 73% of participants, loss of T790M ctDNA is observed at progression and no participants have evidence of the EGFR C797S resistance mutation following the alternating regimen. These findings highlight the challenges of treatment strategies designed to modulate clonal evolution and the clinical importance of resistance mechanisms beyond suppression of selected genetic mutations in driving therapeutic escape to highly potent targeted therapies.

Validity and Efficiency of Progression-Free Survival-2 as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in Advanced Cancer Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS)-2, defined as the time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy, is potentially a more reliable surrogate than PFS for overall survival (OS), but will require longer follow-up and a larger sample size. We sought to compare the validity and efficiency, defined as proportional increase in follow-up time and sample size, of PFS-2 to PFS. METHODS: We performed an electronic search to identify randomized trials of advanced solid tumors reporting PFS, PFS-2, and OS as prespecified end points. Only studies that had protocols that defined measurement of PFS-2 and follow-up for patients after first disease progression were included. We compared correlations in the relative treatment effect for OS with PFS and PFS-2. We reconstructed individual patient data from survival curves to estimate time to statistical significance (TSS) of the relative treatment effect. We further computed the sample size (person-year [PY] follow-up) required to reach statistical significance. RESULTS: Across the 42 analysis units and 21,255 patients, the correlation of the relative treatment effect between OS and PFS-2, r, was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.80) and r = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74) for OS and PFS. The median differences in TSS between OS with PFS, OS with PFS-2, and PFS with PFS-2 were 16.59 (95% CI, 4.48 to not reached [NR]), 10.0 (95% CI, 2.2 to NR), and 4.31 (95% CI, 2.92 to 13.13) months, respectively. The median difference in PYs required to reach statistical significance for PFS-2 over PFS was 156 (95% CI, 82 to 500) PYs, equivalent to an estimated median 12.7% increase in PYs. CONCLUSION: PFS-2 offers improved correlation with OS than PFS with a modest increase in follow-up time and sample size. PFS-2 should be considered as a primary end point in future trials of advanced cancers.

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials.

Advances in genomics have enabled anticancer therapies to be tailored to target specific genomic alterations. Single-arm trials (SATs), including those incorporated within umbrella, basket, and platform trials, are widely adopted when it is not feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials in rare biomarker-defined subpopulations. External controls (ECs), defined as control arm data derived outside the clinical trial, have gained renewed interest as a strategy to supplement evidence generated from SATs to allow comparative analysis. There are increasing examples demonstrating the application of EC in precision oncology trials. The prospective application of EC in conducting comparative studies is associated with distinct methodological challenges, the specific considerations for EC use in biomarker-defined subpopulations have not been adequately discussed, and a formal framework is yet to be established. In this review, we present a framework for conducting a prospective comparative analysis using EC. Key steps are (1) defining the purpose of using EC to address the study question, (2) determining if the external data are fit for purpose, (3) developing a transparent study protocol and a statistical analysis plan, and (iv) interpreting results and drawing conclusions on the basis of a prespecified hypothesis. We specify the considerations required for the biomarker-defined subpopulations, which include (1) specifying the comparator and biomarker status of the comparator group, (2) defining lines of treatment, (3) assessment of the biomarker testing panels used, and (4) assessment of cohort stratification in tumor-agnostic studies. We further discuss novel clinical trial designs and statistical techniques leveraging EC to propose future directions to advance evidence generation and facilitate drug development in precision oncology.

Discordance between GCIG CA-125 progression and RECIST progression in the CALYPSO trial of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: CA-125 alone is widely used to diagnose progressive disease (PD) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) on chemotherapy. However, there are increasing concerns regarding its accuracy. We assessed concordance between progression defined by CA-125 and RECIST using data from the CALYPSO trial. METHODS: We computed concordance rates for PD by CA-125 and RECIST to determine the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). RESULTS: Of 769 (79%) evaluable participants, 387 had CA-125 PD, where only 276 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV 71%, 95% CI 67-76%). For 382 without CA-125 PD, 255 had RECIST PD but 127 did not (NPV 33%, 95% CI 29-38). There were significant differences in NPV according to baseline CA-125 (≤100 vs >100: 42% vs 25%, P < 0.001); non-measurable vs measurable disease (51% vs 26%, P < 0.001); and platinum-free-interval (>12 vs 6-12 months: 41% vs 14%, P < 0.001). We observed falling CA-125 levels in 78% of patients with RECIST PD and CA-125 non-PD. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 in 3 women with PSROC have RECIST PD but not CA-125 PD by GCIG criteria. Monitoring CA-125 levels alone is not reliable for detecting PD. Further research is required to investigate the survival impact of local therapy in radiological detected early asymptomatic PD.