Metabolic control of adaptive ß-cell proliferation by the protein deacetylase SIRT2.

Selective and controlled expansion of endogenous ß-cells has been pursued as a potential therapy for diabetes. Ideally, such therapies would preserve feedback control of ß-cell proliferation to avoid excessive ß-cell expansion and an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Here, we identified a regulator of ß-cell proliferation whose inactivation results in controlled ß-cell expansion: the protein deacetylase Sirtuin 2 (SIRT2). Sirt2 deletion in ß-cells of mice increased ß-cell proliferation during hyperglycemia with little effect in homeostatic conditions, indicating preservation of feedback control of ß-cell mass. SIRT2 restrains proliferation of human islet ß-cells cultured in glucose concentrations above the glycemic set point, demonstrating conserved SIRT2 function. Analysis of acetylated proteins in islets treated with a SIRT2 inhibitor revealed that SIRT2 deacetylates enzymes involved in oxidative phosphorylation, dampening the adaptive increase in oxygen consumption during hyperglycemia. At the transcriptomic level, Sirt2 inactivation has context-dependent effects on ß-cells, with Sirt2 controlling how ß-cells interpret hyperglycemia as a stress. Finally, we provide proof-of-principle that systemic administration of a GLP1-coupled Sirt2-targeting antisense oligonucleotide achieves ß-cell selective Sirt2 inactivation and stimulates ß-cell proliferation under hyperglycemic conditions. Overall, these studies identify a therapeutic strategy for increasing ß-cell mass in diabetes without circumventing feedback control of ß-cell proliferation.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Development of a Conceptual Model of the Patient Experience in Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Interview Study.

INTRODUCTION: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a subtype of lung cancer, the second most common cancer diagnosis worldwide. Currently, there is little published qualitative research that provides insight into the disease-related symptoms and impacts that are relevant to patients living with SCLC as directly reported by patients themselves. METHODS: This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional, descriptive study included concept elicitation interviews with participants diagnosed with SCLC and the development of a conceptual model of clinical treatment benefit. RESULTS: Concept elicitation interview data from 26 participants with SCLC were used to develop a conceptual model of clinical treatment benefit that organized 28 patient-reported concepts into two domains: disease-related symptoms (organ-specific and systemic) and impacts. Organ-specific symptoms included cough, chest pain, and difficulty breathing. Systemic symptoms included pain, fatigue, appetite loss, and dizziness. Impacts included physical functioning, role functioning, reduced movement, impact on sleep, and weight loss. CONCLUSION: As evidenced by this study, people with SCLC experience considerable and significant symptoms and impacts, including physical and role functioning challenges, that affect their quality of life. This conceptual model will inform the design of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire for a future SCLC clinical trial, helping to establish the content validity of the items and questionnaires used in the trial and ensuring that the questionnaires and items selected are appropriately targeted to the population. This conceptual model could also be used to inform future SCLC clinical trials.

Is Intention to Treat Still the Gold Standard or Should Health Technology Assessment Agencies Embrace a Broader Estimands Framework?: Insights and Perspectives From the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen on the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9 (R1) Addendum.

OBJECTIVES: The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E9 (R1) addendum will have an important impact on the design and analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials, which represent crucial sources of evidence in health technology assessments, and on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle in particular. This article brings together a task force of health economists and statisticians in academic institutes and the pharmaceutical industry, to examine the implications of the addendum from the perspective of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and to address the question of whether the ITT principle should be considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. METHODS: We review the ITT principle, as introduced in the ICH E9 guideline. We then present an overview of the ICH E9 (R1) addendum and its estimand framework, highlighting its premise and the proposed strategies for handling intercurrent events, and examine some cases among submissions to IQWiG and NICE. RESULTS: IQWiG and NICE appear to have diverging perspectives around the relevance of the ITT principle and, in particular, the acceptance of hypothetical strategies for estimating treatment effects, as suggested by examples where the sponsor proposed an alternative approach to the ITT principle when accounting for treatment switching for interventional oncology trials. CONCLUSIONS: The ICH E9 (R1) addendum supports the use of methods that depart from the ITT principle. The relevance of estimands using these methods depends on the perspectives and objectives of payers. It is challenging to design a study that meets all stakeholders' research questions. Different estimands may serve to answer different relevant questions or decision problems.

Investigating the trends in patient-reported outcomes pre-treatment and implications to efficacy analyses: A post-hoc analysis of a cancer clinical trial.

Background: Uncertainty around key elements of an appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) baseline assessment introduces trial-specific variation in oncology clinical trials with a poorly understood consequence on drug evaluation decisions. This research investigated the impact of multiple pre-treatment PRO assessments and timing of assessments in a clinical trial. Methods: A post-hoc analysis of a completed phase 3, open-label, randomized, parallel arm clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer with two pre-treatment PRO assessments (screening and Week 1 Day 1 [W1D1]). Descriptive analyses, mixed models for repeated measures and time until definitive deterioration analyses were performed to estimate differences between treatment arms. Through model adjustments, different baseline specifications and assessment timing (pre/post-randomization) on W1D1 PROs were evaluated. Results: Patients with both pre-treatment PRO assessments were included in the analysis (N = 535). Numerically small average change scores were observed between screening and W1D1 (mean change, 0-100 scale ranges): Chest pain (-0.94), Cough (-0.94), Dyspnea (1.27), Physical functioning (-1.19). Both pre-treatment assessments were moderately-highly correlated (r: 0.55-0.78) and no trend was found for deterioration or improvement during this period. Varying baseline definitions in the models produced slight differences in model fit but no impact on the between treatment group effect estimate. W1D1 PRO scores were not statistically influenced by assessment timing pre/post-randomization (p-values: 0.142-0.628). Conclusion: Findings from this study question the need for multiple pre-treatment PRO assessments in oncology drug development trials and the degree of bias thought to be introduced through patient knowledge of treatment assignment. Implications for researchers are presented.

Is IQWiG's 15% Threshold Universally Applicable in Assessing the Clinical Relevance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Changes? An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

This article discusses a recent methodological change to assess the additional benefit of drug intervention by the German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), a key stakeholder in EUnetHTA21 (European Network for Health Technology Assessment joint consortium for future EU HTA regulation), methodological workstream. The German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) set a universal individual response threshold at ≥ 15% of the scale range of the measurement instrument, for all patient-reported outcomes, to achieve an additional benefit rating for a given pharmaceutical intervention. This approach is originally based on a corresponding recommendation from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. The merits of this approach are reviewed from various perspectives, including the evidence basis, statistical and psychometric considerations, and regulatory perspectives by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment Special Interest Group's multistakeholder group of authors (academia, contract research organizations, and industry). Particular focus is placed on the patient perspective within the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care approach. The article development incorporated feedback from ISPOR members during well-attended ISPOR US and European conference presentations and 2 formal rounds of written review. The authors concluded that the ≥ 15% response threshold is incongruent with previously defined and scientifically established thresholds and is not well-suited for universal implementation. Further scientific evidence and discussion among all stakeholders are needed, especially should this universal rule be considered in the context of future joint clinical assessments of health technologies in the European Union scheduled from 2025 onward.

Interpreting Within-Patient Changes on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13.

INTRODUCTION: When determining if changes on patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in clinical trials convey a meaningful treatment benefit, statistical significance tests alone may not communicate the patient perspective. Appraising within-patient changes on PRO scores against established thresholds can determine if improvements or deteriorations experienced by individuals are meaningful. To evaluate the appropriateness of thresholds for interpreting meaningful improvements and deterioration within individuals on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item core instrument (QLQ-C30) and 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13), a series of psychometric methods were applied to data from a phase III randomized controlled clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Anchor-based methods of empirical cumulative distribution functions and classification statistics were employed using change scores from Baseline to Week 7 using changes on the QLQ-C30 Global Health Status item as an anchor. Distribution-based methods of one-half standard deviation and standard error of measurement identified the minimum amount of change each domain score can reliably measure. RESULTS: While the correlations between the domain scores and the anchor item were modest in size (i.e., r ≥ 0.30 for only 5 of 24 domains), consideration of multiple methods along with the magnitude of possible step changes on the score allowed for patterns to emerge. The triangulation process planned a priori resulted in different methods being the source for different domain scores. Absolute values of the proposed thresholds ranged from 11.11 to 33.33, and all resulted in the same classifications for all EORTC domains, except QLQ-C30 Fatigue, as would the 10-point threshold that is traditionally used. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the appropriateness of the 10-point EORTC score threshold generally used by the field for interpreting within-patient changes, but the thresholds proposed from this study enhance interpretability by corresponding to only observable locations along the domain score scale.

How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments.

OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments. RESULTS: MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.

Single-cell chromatin accessibility identifies pancreatic islet cell type- and state-specific regulatory programs of diabetes risk.

Single-nucleus assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing (snATAC-seq) creates new opportunities to dissect cell type-specific mechanisms of complex diseases. Since pancreatic islets are central to type 2 diabetes (T2D), we profiled 15,298 islet cells by using combinatorial barcoding snATAC-seq and identified 12 clusters, including multiple alpha, beta and delta cell states. We cataloged 228,873 accessible chromatin sites and identified transcription factors underlying lineage- and state-specific regulation. We observed state-specific enrichment of fasting glucose and T2D genome-wide association studies for beta cells and enrichment for other endocrine cell types. At T2D signals localized to islet-accessible chromatin, we prioritized variants with predicted regulatory function and co-accessibility with target genes. A causal T2D variant rs231361 at the KCNQ1 locus had predicted effects on a beta cell enhancer co-accessible with INS and genome editing in embryonic stem cell-derived beta cells affected INS levels. Together our findings demonstrate the power of single-cell epigenomics for interpreting complex disease genetics.

What is the Impact of the Analysis Method Used for Health State Utility Values on QALYs in Oncology? A Simulation Study Comparing Progression-Based and Time-to-Death Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values ('utilities') are an integral part of health technology assessment. Though traditionally categorised by disease status in oncology (i.e. progression), several recent assessments have adopted values calculated according to the time that measures were recorded before death. We conducted a simulation study to understand the limitations of each approach, with a focus on mismatches between the way utilities are generated, and analysed. METHODS: Survival times were simulated based on published literature, with permutations of three utility generation mechanisms (UGMs) and utility analysis methods (UAMs): (1) progression based, (2) time-to-death based, and (3) a 'combination approach'. For each analysis quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated. Goodness of fit was assessed via percentage mean error (%ME) and mean absolute error (%MAE). Scenario analyses were performed varying individual parameters, with complex scenarios mimicking published studies. The statistical code is provided for transparency and to aid future work in the area. RESULTS: %ME and %MAE were lowest when the correct analysis form was specified (i.e. UGM and UAM aligned). Underestimates were produced when a time-to-death element was present in the UGM but not included in the UAM, while the 'combined' UAM produced overestimates irrespective of the UGM. Scenario analysis demonstrated the importance of the volume of available data beyond the initial time period, for example follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the use of an incorrectly or over-specified UAM can result in substantial bias in the estimation of utilities. We present a flowchart to highlight the issues that may be faced.

Health-related quality of life trajectory of treatment-naive patients with Merkel cell carcinoma receiving avelumab.

Aim: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a Phase II trial (NCT02155647) of treatment-naive patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with avelumab (15-month follow-up). Materials & methods: Mixed-effect Models for Repeated Measures were applied to HRQoL data (FACT-M; EQ-5D-5L) to assess changes over time. Clinically derived progression-free survival was compared with HRQoL deterioration-free survival. Results: Overall, we saw relative stability in HRQoL among 116 included patients, with nonprogression associated with statistically and clinically meaningful better HRQoL compared with progressive disease. Deterioration-free survival rates (49-72% at 6 months, 40-58% at 12 months) were consistently higher/better compared with progression-free survival rates (41/31% at 6/12 months). Conclusion: These findings show unique longitudinal HRQoL data for treatment-naive metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma patients treated with avelumab. Clinical trial registration: NCT02155647 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry Assay Comparison Studies in NSCLC: Characterization of the 73-10 Assay.

INTRODUCTION: Several programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays have been developed independently within clinical programs for therapeutic anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) or PD-L1 antibodies, necessitating assessment of assay comparability. We characterized the Dako PD-L1 IHC 73-10 assay used in clinical trials of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) or bintrafusp alfa (M7824; bifunctional immunotherapy) and compared it with the Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, an approved companion diagnostic for pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NSCLC tumor samples from a commercial source and from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase 1 trial of avelumab (NCT01772004) were stained using the 73-10 and 22C3 IHC assays with a standard protocol. RESULTS: Both assays displayed expected PD-L1 staining patterns. In 148 commercial NSCLC samples, the 73-10 assay stained greater than or equal to 1%, greater than or equal to 50%, and greater than or equal to 80% of tumor cells as PD-L1+ in 64.2%, 36.5%, and 23.6% of the samples, respectively, whereas the 22C3 assay stained 20.3% of the samples as greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+. In 83 NSCLC clinical trial samples, the 73-10 assay stained 79.5% and 31.3% of the samples as greater than or equal to 1% and greater than or equal to 80% PD-L1+, respectively, whereas the 22C3 assay stained 59.0% and 21.7% as greater than or equal to 1% and greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+, respectively. Efficacy of avelumab was similar in the subgroups classified with the 73-10 and 22C3 assays using greater than or equal to 80% and greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ cutoffs, with objective response rates of 26.9% and 33.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 73-10 assay demonstrated high sensitivity for PD-L1 staining, and staining was comparable between the greater than or equal to 80% cutoff of the 73-10 assay and greater than or equal to 50% cutoff of the 22C3 assay.

Update on the psychometric properties and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds of the FACT-M questionnaire for use in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: For valid and reliable assessment of patients' Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), it is crucial to use psychometrically robust instruments. In the context of rare diseases such as Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), validated disease-specific instruments are often not available. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Melanoma (FACT-M) was originally developed for use in melanoma. Its psychometric performance for use in MCC and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds have been previously reported based on a cohort of metastatic MCC patients who had disease progression following one or more prior line of chemotherapy (NCT02155647 Part A; n = 70). Since then, new data from the phase II JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial among treatment-naïve patients are available (NCT02155647 Part B; n = 102). This study aims to increase accuracy and precision of previously established psychometric properties and MID thresholds of FACT-M in metastatic MCC patients. METHODS: Published qualitative research suggests that patients with metastatic MCC had similar experiences and described similar concepts associated with their disease independent of whether they were treatment naïve or had prior treatment. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to pool FACT-M data from Part A (previously treated) and Part B (treatment-naïve) cohorts for this study. Construct validity was assessed by evaluating item-factor correlations (convergent validity) and known-groups validity using ECOG performance status 0 versus 1. Concurrent validity was assessed using EQ-5D items. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to derive MID thresholds. RESULTS: Overall, psychometric tests based on various validity (convergent, known-groups, concurrent) and reliability (Cronbach α) analyses confirmed previous findings in that FACT-M performs well in MCC patients. MID thresholds derived from this study are largely in line with previously established thresholds with some minor adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rare diseases, which often have limited data available for psychometric testing, a reasonably large MCC patient sample was available for this study, enhancing accuracy and precision of previously established FACT-M psychometric properties and MID thresholds with only small deviations for use in metastatic MCC patients. Results suggest that the FACT-M is suitable for Merkel cell carcinoma regardless of patients' treatment status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a pre-planned post-hoc analysis conducted on data collected in Part A and Part B of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. This trial was registered on 2 June 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647.

Evaluation of survival extrapolation in immuno-oncology using multiple pre-planned data cuts: learnings to aid in model selection.

BACKGROUND: Due to limited duration of follow up in clinical trials of cancer treatments, estimates of lifetime survival benefits are typically derived using statistical extrapolation methods. To justify the method used, a range of approaches have been proposed including statistical goodness-of-fit tests and comparing estimates against a previous data cut (i.e. interim data collected). In this study, we extend these approaches by presenting a range of extrapolations fitted to four pre-planned data cuts from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (JM200) trial. By comparing different estimates of survival and goodness-of-fit as JM200 data mature, we undertook an iterative process of fitting and re-fitting survival models to retrospectively identify early indications of likely long-term survival. METHODS: Standard and spline-based parametric models were fitted to overall survival data from each JM200 data cut. Goodness-of-fit was determined using an assessment of the estimated hazard function, information theory-based methods and objective comparisons of estimation accuracy. Best-fitting extrapolations were compared to establish which one provided the most accurate estimation, and how statistical goodness-of-fit differed. RESULTS: Spline-based models provided the closest fit to the final JM200 data cut, though all extrapolation methods based on the earliest data cut underestimated the 'true' long-term survival (difference in restricted mean survival time [RMST] at 36 months: - 1.1 to - 0.5 months). Goodness-of-fit scores illustrated that an increasingly flexible model was favored as data matured. Given an early data cut, a more flexible model better aligned with clinical expectations could be reasonably justified using a range of metrics, including RMST and goodness-of-fit scores (which were typically within a 2-point range of the statistically 'best-fitting' model). CONCLUSIONS: Survival estimates from the spline-based models are more aligned with clinical expectation and provided a better fit to the JM200 data, despite not exhibiting the definitively 'best' statistical goodness-of-fit. Longer-term data are required to further validate extrapolations, though this study illustrates the importance of clinical plausibility when selecting the most appropriate model. In addition, hazard-based plots and goodness-of-fit tests from multiple data cuts present useful approaches to identify when a more flexible model may be advantageous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: JAVELIN Merkel 200 was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647 on June 4, 2014.

Value assessment of immuno-oncology in the treatment of rare tumors in the era of accelerated conditional approvals.

Aim: To conduct a value assessment of an immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for a rare cancer and evaluate whether existing frameworks consider challenges associated with valuing IOs for rare cancers. Materials & methods: Value frameworks developed by American Society of Clinical Oncologists, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and National Comprehensive Cancer Network were used to estimate the value of an IO therapy in a rare cancer based on single-arm trial data and retrospective studies. Results: Paucity of direct evidence comparing rare cancer treatments and lack of acceptance of indirect comparisons hinder appropriate value assessment. Measurement of value based on short-term outcomes may not capture the value of IOs, where survival is often characterized by a plateau. Conclusion: Further work is required to factor in nuances associated with rare cancers and guide end users of the frameworks. To capture true value, multiple or more holistic value assessments are required.

Assessment-Schedule Matching in Unanchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Progression-Free Survival in Cancer Studies.

BACKGROUND: The timing of efficacy-related clinical events recorded at scheduled study visits in clinical trials are interval censored, with the interval duration pre-determined by the study protocol. Events may happen any time during that interval but can only be detected during a planned or unplanned visit. Disease progression in oncology is a notable example where the time to an event is affected by the schedule of visits within a study. This can become a source of bias when studies with varying assessment schedules are used in unanchored comparisons using methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. OBJECTIVE: We illustrate assessment-time bias (ATB) in a simulation study based on data from a recent study in second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and present a method to adjust for differences in assessment schedule when comparing progression-free survival (PFS) against a competing treatment. METHODS: A multi-state model for death and progression was used to generate simulated death and progression times, from which PFS times were derived. PFS data were also generated for a hypothetical comparator treatment by applying a constant hazard ratio (HR) to the baseline treatment. Simulated PFS times for the two treatments were then aligned to different assessment schedules so that progression events were only observed at set visit times, and the data were analysed to assess the bias and standard error of estimates of HRs between two treatments with and without assessment-schedule matching (ASM). RESULTS: ATB is highly affected by the rate of the event at the first assessment time; in our examples, the bias ranged from 3 to 11% as the event rate increased. The proposed method relies on individual-level data from a study and attempts to adjust the timing of progression events to the comparator's schedule by shifting them forward or backward without altering the patients' actual follow-up time. The method removed the bias almost completely in all scenarios without affecting the precision of estimates of comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increasing use of unanchored comparative analyses for novel cancer treatments based on single-arm studies, the proposed method offers a relatively simple means of improving the accuracy of relative benefits of treatments on progression times.

Psychometric Properties of EQ-5D-5L Scoring Algorithms for the United Kingdom in Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are 4 EQ-5D-5L scoring algorithms available for the United Kingdom that can be used to derive a utility score. OBJECTIVES: To perform a psychometric validation of the EQ-5D utility score in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) and to compare 4 EQ-5D-5L value sets currently available for the United Kingdom. METHODS: Data collected in the phase 2 trial JAVELIN Merkel 200 were analyzed, in which 88 patients with mMCC were treated with avelumab. Utility scores were calculated using the EQ-5D-5L valuation set by Devlin et al and 3 further algorithms that are based on EQ-5D-3L valuations. Criterion validity was assessed by Pearson correlations between utility and other HRQoL scales. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating change in utility scores with change in HRQoL scales and percentage change in tumor size. Effect sizes for change from baseline in utility were calculated in subgroups of patients with improving and deteriorating health based on clinically relevant changes in various external anchors. RESULTS: Devlin utilities were up to 0.10 points higher than utilities calculated from EQ-5D-3L valuations. Large correlations (0.45-0.72; P < .01) between utility and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and FACT-G total, physical, and functional scores were found for all 4 algorithms. Large correlations between these measures were also found for change from baseline scores. In patients with health improvements, effect sizes were larger for the 3 EQ-5D-3L-based algorithms, whereas the Devlin utilities had larger effect sizes for health deteriorations, probably because of different levels of baseline utility. CONCLUSIONS: The English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence currently recommends use of the 3L valuation sets. Our analyses show that all 4 scoring algorithms have good and similar psychometric properties in patients with mMCC.

Correction to: Psychometric properties of the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma.

.

Early objective response to avelumab treatment is associated with improved overall survival in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Response rates are primary endpoints in many oncology trials; however, correlation with overall survival (OS) is not uniform across cancer types, treatments, or lines of therapy. This study explored the association between objective response (OR) and OS in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma who received avelumab (anti-PD-L1). METHODS: Eighty-eight patients enrolled in JAVELIN Merkel 200 (part A; NCT02155647) received i.v. avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Using conditional landmark analyses, we compared OS in patients with and without confirmed OR (RECIST v1.1). We applied a Cox model that included OR as a time-varying covariate and adjusted for age, visceral disease, and number of previous therapies. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients had confirmed OR; 20 by study week 7 and 7 more between study weeks 7 and 13. Survival probabilities 18 months after treatment initiation were 90% [95% confidence interval (CI) 65.6-97.4] in patients with OR at week 7 and 26.2% (95% CI 15.7-37.8) in patients without OR but who were alive at week 7. Median OS was not reached in patients with OR and was 8.8 months (95% CI 6.4-12.9) in patients without. Similar results were observed for the week 13 landmark. The adjusted Cox model showed OR was associated with a 95% risk reduction of death [hazard ratio 0.052 (95% CI 0.018-0.152)] compared with a nonresponse. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OR by 7 or 13 weeks had significantly longer OS than patients without, confirming that early OR is an endpoint of major importance.

Nonprogression with avelumab treatment associated with gains in quality of life in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

AIM: To assess the association between tumor response and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with the anti-PD-L1 avelumab. MATERIALS & METHODS: Phase II single-arm trial (NCT02155647) data of 88 patients were analyzed. Correlations between percentage reduction in tumor size and change from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), FACT - Melanoma (FACT-M) and EuroQol-5 Dimension scores were calculated. HRQoL and utility by tumor response (per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1) was estimated. RESULTS: Tumor shrinkage correlated positively with patients' change from baseline in the FACT-M total (0.364 [95% CI: 0.050-0.607]) and subscale scores. Differences in HRQoL and utility between nonprogressive disease and progressive disease were clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, nonprogression during treatment with avelumab correlated with gains in HRQoL.