Neutropenia, neutrophilia, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic markers in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background and purpose: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are potentially useful prognostic markers in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This post hoc analysis investigated whether these markers can be utilized for dose considerations and evaluated the prognostic impact of leukocyte subtypes. Patients and methods: PROSELICA assessed the non-inferiority of cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20; n = 598) versus 25 mg/m2 (C25; n = 602) for overall survival (OS) in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel. The association of grade ⩾ 3 neutropenia, NLR, baseline neutrophilia and lymphopenia with OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSArr) was investigated by an unplanned uni- and multivariate analyses. Results: PROSELICA confirmed the negative prognostic value of increased baseline NLR [⩾3, hazard ratio (HR) 1.40; p < 0.0001], but did not identify a subgroup of patients benefiting more from C20 or C25. In this post hoc analysis, patients who developed grade ⩾3 neutropenia (n = 673) had a significantly improved OS [∆OS = 2.7 months, HR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.89)] with the greatest advantage observed in patients with baseline neutrophilia [n = 85; 5.3 months, 0.60 (0.42-0.84)]. After adjustment for the Halabi criteria, neutropenia grade ⩾ 3 was the only biomarker that remained significantly associated with OS [ (HR 0.86 (0.75-0.98)], PFS [HR 0.78 (0.68-0.88)], and PSArr [odds ratio (OR) 1.82 (1.37-2.41)] while neutrophilia showed the strongest association with OS [1.53 (1.29-1.81)]. Conclusions: Grade ⩾ 3 neutropenia was the only leukocyte-based biomarker associated with all key outcome parameters in mCRPC patients receiving cabazitaxel and might be able to overcome the negative prognostic effect of baseline neutrophilia. NCT number: NCT01308580.

Janus kinase-2 inhibitor fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (JAKARTA-2): a single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterised by splenomegaly, cytopenias, bone marrow fibrosis, and debilitating symptoms including fatigue, weight loss, and bone pain. Mutations in Janus kinase-2 (JAK2) occur in approximately 50% of patients. The only approved JAK2 inhibitor for myelofibrosis is the dual JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib. 58-71% of patients treated with ruxolitinib in clinical trials so far have not achieved the primary endpoint of 35% or more reduction in spleen volume from baseline assessed by MRI or CT. Furthermore, more than 50% of patients discontinue ruxolitinib treatment after 3-5 years. On the basis of this unmet need, we investigated the efficacy and safety of fedratinib, a JAK2-selective inhibitor, in patients with ruxolitinib-resistant or ruxolitinib-intolerant myelofibrosis. METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study, done at 31 sites in nine countries, enrolled adult patients with a current diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk primary myelofibrosis, post-polycythaemia vera myelofibrosis, or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis, found to be ruxolitinib resistant or intolerant after at least 14 days of treatment. Other main inclusion criteria were palpable splenomegaly (≥5 cm below the left costal margin), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, and life expectancy of 6 months or less. Patients received oral fedratinib at a starting dose of 400 mg once per day, for six consecutive 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was spleen response (defined as the proportion of patients with a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume as determined by blinded CT and MRI at a central imaging laboratory). We did the primary analysis in the per-protocol population only (patients treated with fedratinib, for whom a baseline and at least one post-baseline spleen volume measurement was available) and the safety analysis in all patients receiving at least one dose of fedratinib. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01523171. FINDINGS: Between May 8, 2012, and Aug 29, 2013, 97 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of fedratinib. Of 83 assessable patients, 46 (55%, 95% CI 44-66) achieved a spleen response. Common grade 3-4 adverse events included anaemia (37 [38%] of 97 patients) and thrombocytopenia (21 [22%] of 97), with 18 (19%) patients discontinuing due to adverse events. Seven (7%) patients died during the study, but none of the deaths was drug related. Suspected cases of Wernicke's encephalopathy in other fedratinib trials led to study termination. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 study met its primary endpoint, suggesting that patients with ruxolitinib-resistant or ruxolitinib-intolerant myelofibrosis might achieve significant clinical benefit with fedratinib, albeit at the cost of some potential toxicity, which requires further evaluation. Fedratinib development in this setting is currently being assessed. FUNDING: Sanofi.

A note on sequential monitoring of select-the-winner design.

Consider a trial comparing two treatments or doses A and B with a control C. Based on a unblinded interim look, a winner W between A and B will be chosen, and future patients will be randomized to W and C and compared at the end of a study. The naïve test statistic Z under this setting follows an approximate normal distribution, as shown by Lan et al. (2006) and Shun et al. (2008). Results of these two articles apply only to the fixed sample size design. With simple modifications, this manuscript extends the previous works to the group sequential setting.

Intravenous aflibercept in patients with platinum-resistant, advanced ovarian cancer: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase 2, parallel-arm study.

BACKGROUND: In this randomized phase 2 study, the authors assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous aflibercept at 2 different doses (2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg) in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who developed disease progression after receiving topotecan and/or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive intravenous aflibercept at a dose of either 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg every 2 weeks until they developed disease progression or significant toxicity. The primary endpoint was to evaluate Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor response rates (overall response rate [ORR] = complete responses plus partial responses) and to test the null hypothesis (ORR, >5%). Secondary endpoints included time to tumor progression, safety, progression-free survival/overall survival, drug pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. In total, 67 evaluable patients per cohort were planned based on a Simon 2-stage design, and, if those patients responded, then enrollment could extend to 200 patients. Tumor radiographic response was assessed by investigators and by an independent review committee. RESULTS: After the first 84 evaluable patients, 8 unconfirmed partial responders were noted (ORR, 10%) across both arms; the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing blinded accrual. At study completion, 215 evaluable patients were accrued, including 1 responder of 106 patients (0.9%) in the 2-mg/kg cohort and 5 responders of 109 patients (4.6%) in the 4-mg/kg cohort according to the independent review committee. The clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease >6 months) was 12.3% and 11% in the 2-mg/kg and 4-mg/kg cohorts, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events included hypertension (25.5% and 27.5% in the 2-mg/kg and 4-mg/kg cohorts, respectively), proteinuria (9.4% and 7.3%, respectively), and fatigue (5.7% and 3.7%, respectively). The gastrointestinal perforation rate was low (3 patients; 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept at a dose of either 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg was generally well tolerated but did not meet the primary endpoint for response.

A multicenter, phase 2 study of vascular endothelial growth factor trap (Aflibercept) in platinum- and erlotinib-resistant adenocarcinoma of the lung.

INTRODUCTION: Aflibercept (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] trap), a recombinant fusion protein, blocks the activity of VEGF-A and placental growth factor and has demonstrated activity in pretreated patients with lung cancer in a phase I trial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous aflibercept in patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: An open-label, single arm, multicenter trial was conducted, with the primary end point of response rate (modified RECIST). Additional endpoints included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma were eligible. Aflibercept 4.0 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks was administered until progression of disease or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled; 89 were evaluable for response. Median age was 60 years, 41% were men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1/2 in 35/55/9% of patients. The overall response rate was 2.0%, (95% confidence interval, 0.2-7.2%). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and overall was survival 6.2 months. Six- and 12-month survival rates were 54 and 29%, respectively. A median of four cycles was administered (range 1-22). Common grade 3/4 toxicities included dyspnea (21%), hypertension (23%), and proteinuria (10%). Two cases of grade 5 hemoptysis were reported, and one case each of tracheoesophageal fistula, decreased cardiac ejection fraction, cerebral ischemia, and reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept has minor single agent activity in heavily pretreated lung adenocarcinoma, and is well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities. Further studies evaluating aflibercept in lung cancer, in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies, are ongoing.

Interim treatment selection using the normal approximation approach in clinical trials.

We consider a study starting with two treatment groups and a control group with a planned interim analysis. The inferior treatment group will be dropped after the interim analysis, and only the winning treatment and the control will continue to the end of the study. This 'Two-Stage Winner Design' is based on the concepts of multiple comparison, adaptive design, and winner selection. In a study with such a design, there is less multiplicity, but more adaptability if the interim selection is performed at an early stage. If the interim selection is performed close to the end of the study, the situation becomes the conventional multiple comparison where Dunnett's method may be applied. The unconditional distribution of the final test statistic from the 'winner' treatment is no longer normal, the exact distribution of which is provided in this paper, but numerical integration is needed for its calculation. To avoid complex computations, we propose a normal approximation approach to calculate the type I error, the power, the point estimate, and the confidence intervals. Due to the well understood and attractive properties of the normal distribution, the 'Winner Design' can be easily planned and adequately executed, which is demonstrated by an example. We also provide detailed discussion on how the proposed design should be practically implemented by optimizing the timing of the interim look and the probability of winner selection.

Statistical consideration of the strategy for demonstrating clinical evidence of effectiveness--one larger vs two smaller pivotal studies.

As a regulatory strategy, it is nowadays not uncommon to conduct one confirmatory pivotal clinical trial, instead of two, to demonstrate efficacy and safety in drug development. This paper is intended to investigate the statistical foundation of such an approach. The one-study approach is compared with the conventional two-study approach in terms of power, type-I error, and fundamental statistical assumptions. Necessary requirements for a single-study model is provided in order to maintain equivalent evidence as that from a two-study model. In general, one-study model is valid only under a 'one population' assumption. In addition, higher data quality and more convincing and robust results need to be demonstrated in such cases. However, when 'one-population' assumption is valid and appropriate methods are selected, a one-study model can have a better power using the same sample size. The paper also investigates statistical assumptions and methods for making an overall inference when a two-study model has been used. The methods for integrated analysis are evaluated. It is important for statisticians to select correct pooling strategy based on the project objective and statistical hypothesis.

Dunnett's many-to-one test and least square means.

Dunnett's many-to-one test is used frequently today, especially in dose-finding studies. Using Dunnett's test, the Type I error level for the comparison between the raw mean of the control and the raw means of the study drug groups can be exactly calculated for the normal data. However, this computability depends on the independence of the raw means. Unfortunately, this independence does not exist for the model-based likelihood estimates (least square means) in the cases of ANCOVA and two-way ANOVA models without interaction for unbalanced data. This paper investigates this dependence between the least square means and derives some new procedures to calculate the joint distribution of the statistic for Dunnett's test.

Stopping boundaries adjusted for sample size reestimation and negative stop.

We propose an approach to specify group sequential stopping boundaries adjusted for sample size reestimation and negative stop in interim analyses of a clinical trial. Sample size can be adjusted based on the observed delta at each interim to maintain the targeted power. The calculation of stopping boundaries incorporates possible changes in the type-I error due to sample size reestimation and/or negative stops; hence the overall type-I error is well controlled. This approach combines the advantages of the group sequential and sample size reestimation methods and is more efficient than either one alone. It provides flexibility in clinical trials and still maintains the integrity of these trials. When no early stop is planned, the stopping boundaries will be adjusted only for sample size reestimation. All calculations are given in closed mathematical forms and adjustments in stopping boundaries are based on the exact type-I error change. Therefore, the penalty for the type-I error inflation due to such interim conductions is kept to a minimum.