Improving the clinical meaning of surrogate endpoints: An empirical assessment of clinical progression in phase III oncology trials.

Disease progression in clinical trials is commonly defined by radiologic measures. However, clinical progression may be more meaningful to patients, may occur even when radiologic criteria for progression are not met, and often requires a change in therapy in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the utilization of clinical progression criteria within progression-based trial endpoints among phase III trials testing systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors. The primary manuscripts and protocols of phase III trials were reviewed for whether clinical events, such as refractory pain, tumor bleeding, or neurologic compromise, could constitute a progression event. Univariable logistic regression computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for associations between trial-level covariates and clinical progression. A total of 216 trials enrolling 148,190 patients were included, with publication dates from 2006 through 2020. A major change in clinical status was included in the progression criteria of 13% of trials (n = 27), most commonly as a secondary endpoint (n = 22). Only 59% of trials (n = 16) reported distinct clinical progression outcomes that constituted the composite surrogate endpoint. Compared with other disease sites, genitourinary trials were more likely to include clinical progression definitions (16/33 [48%] vs. 11/183 [6%]; OR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.99 to 37.84; p < .0001). While major tumor-related clinical events were seldom considered as disease progression events, increased attention to clinical progression may improve the meaningfulness and clinical applicability of surrogate endpoints for patients with metastatic solid tumors.

Lost in the plot: missing visual elements in Kaplan-Meier plots of phase III oncology trials.

Missing visual elements (MVE) in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves can misrepresent data, preclude curve reconstruction, and hamper transparency. This study evaluated KM plots of phase III oncology trials. MVE were defined as an incomplete y-axis range or missing number at risk table in a KM curve. Surrogate endpoint KM curves were additionally evaluated for complete interpretability, defined by (1) reporting the number of censored patients and (2) correspondence of the disease assessment interval with the number at risk interval. Among 641 trials enrolling 518 235 patients, 116 trials (18%) had MVE in KM curves. Industry sponsorship, larger trials, and more recently published trials were correlated with lower odds of MVE. Only 3% of trials (15 of 574) published surrogate endpoint KM plots with complete interpretability. Improvements in the quality of KM curves of phase III oncology trials, particularly for surrogate endpoints, are needed for greater interpretability, reproducibility, and transparency in oncology research.

Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with cancer are treated with local therapy (LT), the proportion of late-phase clinical trials investigating local therapeutic interventions is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion, characteristics, and trends of phase 3 cancer clinical trials assessing the therapeutic value of LT over time. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of interventional randomized controlled trials in oncology published from 2002 through 2020 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trends and characteristics of LT trials were compared to all other trials. RESULTS: Of 1877 trials screened, 794 trials enrolling 584,347 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 27 trials (3%) included a primary randomization assessing LT compared with 767 trials (97%) investigating systemic therapy or supportive care. Annual increase in the number of LT trials (slope [m] = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.39; p < .001) was outpaced by the increase of trials testing systemic therapy or supportive care (m = 7.57; 95% CI, 6.03-9.11; p < .001). LT trials were more often sponsored by cooperative groups (22 of 27 [81%] vs. 211 of 767 [28%]; p < .001) and less often sponsored by industry (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 609 of 767 [79%]; p < .001). LT trials were more likely to use overall survival as primary end point compared to other trials (13 of 27 [48%] vs. 199 of 767 [26%]; p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary late-phase oncology research, LT trials are increasingly under-represented, under-funded, and evaluate more challenging end points compared to other modalities. These findings strongly argue for greater resource allocation and funding mechanisms for LT clinical trials. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Most people who have cancer receive treatments directed at the site of their cancer, such as surgery or radiation. We do not know, however, how many trials test surgery or radiation compared to drug treatments (that go all over the body). We reviewed trials testing the most researched strategies (phase 3) completed between 2002 and 2020. Only 27 trials tested local treatments like surgery or radiation compared to 767 trials testing other treatments. Our study has important implications for funding research and understanding cancer research priorities.

Management of chordoma and chondrosarcoma with definitive dose-escalated single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: The management of chordoma or chondrosarcoma involving the spine is often challenging due to adjacent critical structures and tumor radioresistance. Spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) has radiobiologic advantages compared with conventional radiotherapy, though there is limited evidence on SSRS in this population. We sought to characterize the long-term local control (LC) of patients treated with SSRS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with chordoma or chondrosarcoma treated with dose-escalated SSRS, defined as 24 Gy in 1 fraction to the gross tumor volume. Overall survival (OS) was calculated by Kaplan-Meier functions. Competing risk analysis using the cause-specific hazard function estimated LC time. RESULTS: Fifteen patients, including 12 with chordoma and 3 with chondrosarcoma, with 22 lesions were included. SSRS intent was definitive, single-modality in 95% of cases (N = 21) and post-operative in 1 case (5%). After a median censored follow-up time of 5 years (IQR 4 to 8 years), median LC time was not reached (IQR 8 years to not reached), with LC rates of 100%, 100%, and 90% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. The median OS was 8 years (IQR 3 years to not reached). Late grade 3 toxicity occurred after 23% of treatments (N = 5, fracture), all of which were managed successfully with stabilization. CONCLUSION: Definitive dose-escalated SSRS to 24 Gy in 1 fraction appears to be a safe and effective treatment for achieving durable local control in chordoma or chondrosarcoma involving the spine, and may hold particular importance as a low-morbidity alternative to surgery in selected cases.

Chronic Electroconvulsive Therapy May Induce Calvarial Hyperemia and Marrow Replacement.

ABSTRACT: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a treatment option for a number of psychiatric disorders, including refractory major depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. There are no known structural sequelae of ECT. Here we present a patient with severe refractory obsessive compulsive disorder and major depression treated over 2 years with ECT every 2 weeks. Planning magnetic resonance imaging intended for a potential procedural intervention for her psychiatric disease incidentally demonstrated a new area of increased enhancement and loss of marrow signal within the right frontal bone. Imaging findings were suggestive of underlying bone marrow or bone changes, although there was no evidence of bone destruction on bone-windowed computed tomography (CT) and there was no uptake on nuclear bone scan. The CT chest/abdomen/pelvis were also reassuring that this did not represent metastatic disease, and findings were unchanged on repeat magnetic resonance imaging 4 months later. Thus, this area corresponded to the site directly underlying the unilateral ECT electrode placement, suggestive of never-before described ECT-induced hyperemia. We report for the first time that frequent, chronic ECT may induce asymptomatic skull bone marrow hyperemia with radiologic findings. This appears to be a direct consequence of electrical current leading to chronic inflammatory and edematous marrow replacement. Electroconvulsive therapy should be added to the neuroradiological differential diagnosis of calvarial enhancement and loss of marrow signal. Psychiatrists should counsel patients on the possibility of this rare radiological finding, which may be confused for other processes.

An autoimmune-based, paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome following checkpoint inhibition and concurrent radiotherapy for merkel cell carcinoma: case report.

PURPOSE: Merkel cell carcinoma is highly sensitive to both radiation and immunotherapy. Moreover, concurrent radioimmunotherapy may capitalize on anti-tumor immune activity and improve Merkel cell treatment response, although an enhanced immune system may cross-react with native tissues and lead to significant sequelae. METHODS: Here we present a case study of a patient with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with radiotherapy concurrent with pembrolizumab. RESULTS: After radioimmunotherapy, the patient developed sensory neuropathy, visual hallucinations, and mixed motor neuron findings. Neurologic dysfunction progressed to profound gastrointestinal dysmotility necessitating parenteral nutrition and intubation with eventual expiration. CONCLUSION: This case represents a unique autoimmune paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome, likely specific to neuroendocrine tumors and motivated by concurrent radioimmunotherapy. Recognition of the potential role of radioimmunotherapy may provide an advantage in anticipating these severe sequelae.

Systemic inflammatory dynamics during chemoradiotherapy predict response, relapse, metastasis, and survival in esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lymphopenia associated with chemoradiotherapy predicts prognosis in esophageal carcinoma. The purpose of our study was to evaluate alterations in hematologic measures of inflammation during chemoradiation. METHODS: We performed an observational study evaluating adults treated with chemoradiation in the neoadjuvant or definitive setting for stage II-III esophageal carcinoma. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated predictors of pathologic response. Survival was analyzed by time-varying multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were included with median follow-up of 1.6 years. Elevated neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was predictive of incomplete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR, 1.07; P = .0030) as well as shorter distant metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.01; P = .0369) and reduced overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .0448). An NLR > 5.55 in week two of chemoradiation predicted shorter overall survival (P = .0070). Upon adjusted analysis, NLR was independently associated with reduced probability of complete pathologic response (OR, 0.80; P = .0291), as well as poor histologic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR, 1.05; P = .0303), shorter disease-free survival (HR, 1.02; P = .0077), and reduced overall survival (HR, 1.02; P = .0070). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic time-dependent changes in NLR during chemoradiation predict response, relapse, metastasis, and survival in esophageal carcinoma. Prospective validation is warranted.

Outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for refractory Cushing's disease.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for refractory Cushing's disease may offer a condensed treatment schedule for patients with large tumors abutting the optic chiasm unsuitable for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). To-date only four patients have been treated by HSRT in the published literature. We investigated the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of HSRT compared to SRS. METHODS: After approval, we retrospectively evaluated patients treated at our institution for refractory Cushing's disease with SRS or HSRT. Study outcomes included biochemical control, time to biochemical control, local control, and late complications. Binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: Patients treated with SRS (n = 9) and HSRT (n = 9) were enrolled with median follow-up of 3.4 years. Clinicopathologic details were balanced between the cohorts. Local control was 100% in both cohorts. Time to biochemical control was 6.6. and 9.5 months in the SRS and HSRT cohorts, respectively (p = 0.6258). Two patients in each cohort required salvage bilateral adrenalectomy. Late complications including secondary malignancy, radionecrosis, cranial nerve neuropathy, and optic pathway injury were minimal for either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: HSRT is an appropriate treatment approach for refractory Cushing's disease, particularly for patients with large tumors abutting the optic apparatus. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and identify factors suggesting optimal fractionation approaches.

A meta-epidemiological analysis of post-hoc comparisons and primary endpoint interpretability among randomized noncomparative trials in clinical medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized noncomparative trials (RNCTs) promise reduced accrual requirements vs randomized controlled comparative trials because RNCTs do not enroll a control group and instead compare outcomes to historical controls or prespecified estimates. We hypothesized that RNCTs often suffer from two methodological concerns: (1) lack of interpretability due to group-specific inferences in nonrandomly selected samples and (2) misinterpretation due to unlicensed between-group comparisons lacking prespecification. The purpose of this study was to characterize RNCTs and the incidence of these two methodological concerns. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We queried PubMed and Web of Science on September 14, 2023, to conduct a meta-epidemiological analysis of published RNCTs in any field of medicine. Trial characteristics and the incidence of methodological concerns were manually recorded. RESULTS: We identified 70 RNCTs published from 2002 to 2023. RNCTs have been increasingly published over time (slope = 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.39, P < .001). Sixty trials (60/70, 86%) had a lack of interpretability for the primary endpoint due to group-specific inferences. Unlicensed between-group comparisons were present in 36 trials (36/70, 51%), including in the primary conclusion of 31 trials (31/70, 44%), and were accompanied by significance testing in 20 trials (20/70, 29%). Only five (5/70, 7%) trials were found to have neither of these flaws. CONCLUSION: Although RNCTs are increasingly published over time, the primary analysis of nearly all published RNCTs in the medical literature was unsupported by their fundamental underlying methodological assumptions. RNCTs promise group-specific inference, which they are unable to deliver, and undermine the primary advantage of randomization, which is comparative inference. The ongoing use of the RNCT design in lieu of a traditional randomized controlled comparative trial should therefore be reconsidered. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The typical way that doctors can learn whether new drugs are helpful is through a clinical trial. Often, doctors compare these new treatments to the control treatment being used in standard clinical practice. When researchers want to compare different treatments, they may decide to randomly assign one treatment or the other to trial participants. Like flipping a coin, randomly deciding which treatment to use can help researchers make the best comparisons between the new and control treatment by limiting certain biases. These trials are called "randomized comparative trials" and are the most common way researchers can improve medicine. A newer type of trial, called a "randomized noncomparative trial," has become increasingly popular in medicine. Like randomized comparative trials, this type of trial randomly decides which treatment participants receive. However, the "randomized noncomparative trial" is not designed to evaluate whether the new treatment results in better outcomes compared with the control treatment. Instead, the results of each randomized arm in the trial are compared to other patients, who are not a part of the trial, or to another measure set ahead of time by the researchers. This is justified by some researchers, who say that fewer participants are needed for such trials, which helps to finish the trial faster. However, directly comparing the results of patients after receiving a treatment on a clinical trial is one of the most important parts of the trial and the main reason why researchers would want to randomly assign treatments in the first place. To better understand how RNCTs are used in practice, we reviewed all such trials that have been completed in medicine to date. We found that more than half of RNCTs actually ended up comparing their patients anyway, despite saying they would not. This is a problem because these comparisons are not prespecified and may therefore be only reported when the result is what the researchers wanted. Furthermore, the main outcome of each trial was difficult to interpret in most trials because there was no effort to show that the enrolled patients were representative of any prespecified population that would facilitate comparisons with historical information. Overall, only five trials, or just 7% of the "randomized noncomparative trials" published in the medical literature, did not have either of these issues. As a result, this type of clinical trial does not seem to be a good way to improve medical care. If researchers want to learn which treatments are better, they should stick to the standard way to learn this-randomized comparative trials.

Evidenced-Based Prior for Estimating the Treatment Effect of Phase III Randomized Trials in Oncology.

PURPOSE: The primary results of phase III oncology trials may be challenging to interpret, given that results are generally based on P value thresholds. The probability of whether a treatment is beneficial, although more intuitive, is not usually provided. Here, we developed and released a user-friendly tool that calculates the probability of treatment benefit using trial summary statistics. METHODS: We curated 415 phase III randomized trials enrolling 338,600 patients published between 2004 and 2020. A phase III prior probability distribution for the treatment effect was developed on the basis of a three-component zero-mean mixture distribution of the observed z-scores. Using this prior, we computed the probability of clinically meaningful benefit (hazard ratio [HR] <0.8). The distribution of signal-to-noise ratios and power of phase III oncology trials were compared with that of 23,551 randomized trials from the Cochrane Database. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise ratios of phase III oncology trials tended to be much larger than randomized trials from the Cochrane Database. Still, the median power of phase III oncology trials was only 49% (IQR, 14%-95%), and the power was <80% in 65% of trials. Using the phase III oncology-specific prior, only 53% of trials claiming superiority (114 of 216) had a ≥90% probability of clinically meaningful benefits. Conversely, the probability that the experimental arm was superior to the control arm (HR <1) exceeded 90% in 17% of trials interpreted as having no benefit (34 of 199). CONCLUSION: By enabling computation of contextual probabilities for the treatment effect from summary statistics, our robust, highly practical tool, now posted on a user-friendly webpage, can aid the wider oncology community in the interpretation of phase III trials.

Feasibility and Tolerability of Adjuvant Capecitabine-Based Chemoradiation in Patients With Breast Cancer and Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Prospective Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Addition of adjuvant capecitabine improves overall survival for patients with breast cancer lacking pathologic complete response to standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Combining radiosensitizing capecitabine concurrent with radiation may further improve disease control, although the feasibility and tolerability of chemoradiation in this setting is unknown. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of this combination. Secondary objectives included the effect of chemoradiation on physician-reported toxicity, patient-reported skin dermatitis, and patient-reported quality of life compared with patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant radiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients with residual disease following standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled in a prospective single-arm trial and treated with adjuvant capecitabine-based chemoradiation. Feasibility was defined as ≥75% of patients completing chemoradiation as planned. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 and the patient-reported radiation-induced skin reaction scale. Quality of life was measured using the RAND Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (90%) completed chemoradiation without interruption or dose reduction. The incidence of grade ≥3 radiation dermatitis was 5% (1 of 20 patients). Patient-reported radiation dermatitis did not show a clinically meaningful difference following chemoradiation (mean increase, 55 points) compared with published reports of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant radiation alone (mean increase, 47 points). On the other hand, patient-reported quality of life demonstrated a clinically meaningful decline at the end of chemoradiation (mean, 46; SD, 7) compared with the reference population of patients treated with adjuvant radiation alone (mean, 50; SD, 6). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemoradiation with capecitabine is feasible and tolerable in patients with breast cancer. Although current studies using adjuvant capecitabine for residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy have specified sequential treatment of capecitabine and radiation, these results support the conduct of randomized trials in this setting to investigate the efficacy of concurrent radiation with capecitabine and provide patient-reported toxicity estimates for trial design.

Bayesian Interim Analysis and Efficiency of Phase III Randomized Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Improving the efficiency of interim assessments in phase III trials should reduce trial costs, hasten the approval of efficacious therapies, and mitigate patient exposure to disadvantageous randomizations. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that in silico Bayesian early stopping rules improve the efficiency of phase III trials compared with the original frequentist analysis without compromising overall interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: 230 randomized phase III oncology trials enrolling 184,752 participants. PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient-level data were manually reconstructed from primary endpoint Kaplan-Meier curves. INTERVENTIONS: Trial accruals were simulated 100 times per trial and leveraged published patient outcomes such that only the accrual dynamics, and not the patient outcomes, were randomly varied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Early stopping was triggered per simulation if interim analysis demonstrated ≥ 85% probability of minimum clinically important difference/3 for efficacy or futility. Trial-level early closure was defined by stopping frequencies ≥ 0.75. RESULTS: A total of 12,451 simulations (54%) met early stopping criteria. Trial-level early stopping frequency was highly predictive of the published outcome (OR, 7.24; posterior probability of association, >99.99%; AUC, 0.91; P < 0.0001). Trial-level early closure was recommended for 82 trials (36%), including 62 trials (76%) which had performed frequentist interim analysis. Bayesian early stopping rules were 96% sensitive (95% CI, 91% to 98%) for detecting trials with a primary endpoint difference, and there was a high level of agreement in overall trial interpretation (Bayesian Cohen's κ, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.92 to 0.99). However, Bayesian interim analysis was associated with >99.99% posterior probability of reducing patient enrollment requirements ( P < 0.0001), with an estimated cumulative enrollment reduction of 20,543 patients (11%; 89 patients averaged equally over all studied trials) and an estimated cumulative cost savings of 851 million USD (3.7 million USD averaged equally over all studied trials). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Bayesian interim analyses may improve randomized trial efficiency by reducing enrollment requirements without compromising trial interpretation. Increased utilization of Bayesian interim analysis has the potential to reduce costs of late-phase trials, reduce patient exposures to ineffective therapies, and accelerate approvals of effective therapies. KEY POINTS: Question: What are the effects of Bayesian early stopping rules on the efficiency of phase III randomized oncology trials?Findings: Individual-patient level outcomes were reconstructed for 184,752 patients from 230 trials. Compared with the original interim analysis strategy, in silico Bayesian interim analysis reduced patient enrollment requirements and preserved the original trial interpretation. Meaning: Bayesian interim analysis may improve the efficiency of conducting randomized trials, leading to reduced costs, reduced exposure of patients to disadvantageous treatments, and accelerated approval of efficacious therapies.

Increasing Power in Phase III Oncology Trials With Multivariable Regression: An Empirical Assessment of 535 Primary End Point Analyses.

PURPOSE: A previous study demonstrated that power against the (unobserved) true effect for the primary end point (PEP) of most phase III oncology trials is low, suggesting an increased risk of false-negative findings in the field of late-phase oncology. Fitting models with prognostic covariates is a potential solution to improve power; however, the extent to which trials leverage this approach, and its impact on trial interpretation at scale, is unknown. To that end, we hypothesized that phase III trials using multivariable PEP analyses are more likely to demonstrate superiority versus trials with univariable analyses. METHODS: PEP analyses were reviewed from trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated by logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of the 535 trials enrolling 454,824 patients, 69% (n = 368) used a multivariable PEP analysis. Trials with multivariable PEP analyses were more likely to demonstrate PEP superiority (57% [209 of 368] v 42% [70 of 167]; aOR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.18 to 2.72]; P = .007). Among trials with a multivariable PEP model, 16 conditioned on covariates and 352 stratified by covariates. However, 108 (35%) of 312 trials with stratified analyses lost power by categorizing a continuous variable, which was especially common among immunotherapy trials (aOR, 2.45 [95% CI, 1.23 to 4.92]; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Trials increasing power by fitting multivariable models were more likely to demonstrate PEP superiority than trials with unadjusted analysis. Underutilization of conditioning models and empirical power loss associated with covariate categorization required by stratification were identified as barriers to power gains. These findings underscore the opportunity to increase power in phase III trials with conventional methodology and improve patient access to effective novel therapies.

Differential Treatment Effects of Subgroup Analyses in Phase 3 Oncology Trials From 2004 to 2020.

Importance: Subgroup analyses are often performed in oncology to investigate differential treatment effects and may even constitute the basis for regulatory approvals. Current understanding of the features, results, and quality of subgroup analyses is limited. Objective: To evaluate forest plot interpretability and credibility of differential treatment effect claims among oncology trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included randomized phase 3 clinical oncology trials published prior to 2021. Trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Main Outcomes and Measures: Missing visual elements in forest plots were defined as a missing point estimate or use of a linear x-axis scale for hazard and odds ratios. Multiplicity of testing control was recorded. Differential treatment effect claims were rated using the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. Linear and logistic regressions evaluated associations with outcomes. Results: Among 785 trials, 379 studies (48%) enrolling 331 653 patients reported a subgroup analysis. The forest plots of 43% of trials (156 of 363) were missing visual elements impeding interpretability. While 4148 subgroup effects were evaluated, only 1 trial (0.3%) controlled for multiple testing. On average, trials that did not meet the primary end point conducted 2 more subgroup effect tests compared with trials meeting the primary end point (95% CI, 0.59-3.43 tests; P = .006). A total of 101 differential treatment effects were claimed across 15% of trials (55 of 379). Interaction testing was missing in 53% of trials (29 of 55) claiming differential treatment effects. Trials not meeting the primary end point were associated with greater odds of no interaction testing (odds ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.42-15.55, P = .01). The credibility of differential treatment effect claims was rated as low or very low in 93% of cases (94 of 101). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of phase 3 oncology trials, nearly half of trials presented a subgroup analysis in their primary publication. However, forest plots of these subgroup analyses largely lacked essential features for interpretation, and most differential treatment effect claims were not supported. Oncology subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and improvements to the quality of subgroup analyses are needed.

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials.

Most oncology trials define superiority of an experimental therapy compared to a control therapy according to frequentist significance thresholds, which are widely misinterpreted. Posterior probability distributions computed by Bayesian inference may be more intuitive measures of uncertainty, particularly for measures of clinical benefit such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Here, we manually reconstructed 194,129 individual patient-level outcomes across 230 phase III, superiority-design, oncology trials. Posteriors were calculated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling using standard priors. All trials interpreted as positive had probabilities > 90% for marginal benefits (HR < 1). However, 38% of positive trials had ≤ 90% probabilities of achieving the MCID (HR < 0.8), even under an enthusiastic prior. A subgroup analysis of 82 trials that led to regulatory approval showed 30% had ≤ 90% probability for meeting the MCID under an enthusiastic prior. Conversely, 24% of negative trials had > 90% probability of achieving marginal benefits, even under a skeptical prior, including 12 trials with a primary endpoint of overall survival. Lastly, a phase III oncology-specific prior from a previous work, which uses published summary statistics rather than reconstructed data to compute posteriors, validated the individual patient-level data findings. Taken together, these results suggest that Bayesian models add considerable unique interpretative value to phase III oncology trials and provide a robust solution for overcoming the discrepancies between refuting the null hypothesis and obtaining a MCID.

Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation.

PURPOSE: Survival analyses of novel agents with long-term responders often exhibit differential hazard rates over time. Such proportional hazards violations (PHV) may reduce the power of the log-rank test and lead to misinterpretation of trial results. We aimed to characterize the incidence and study attributes associated with PHVs in phase III oncology trials and assess the utility of restricted mean survival time and maximum combination test as additional analyses. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed were searched to identify two-arm, randomized, phase III superiority-design cancer trials with time-to-event primary endpoints and published results through 2020. Patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. PHVs were assessed using Schoenfeld residuals. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-seven Kaplan-Meier comparisons across 341 trials were analyzed, encompassing 292,831 enrolled patients. PHVs were identified in 85/357 [23.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.7%, 28.5%] comparisons. In multivariable analysis, non-overall survival endpoints [OR, 2.16 (95% CI, 1.21, 3.87); P = 0.009] were associated with higher odds of PHVs, and immunotherapy comparisons [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 0.98, 3.86); P = 0.058] were weakly suggestive of higher odds of PHVs. Few trials with PHVs (25/85, 29.4%) prespecified a statistical plan to account for PHVs. Fourteen trials with PHVs exhibited discordant statistical signals with restricted mean survival time or maximum combination test, of which 10 (71%) reported negative results. CONCLUSIONS: PHVs are common across therapy types, and attempts to account for PHVs in statistical design are lacking despite the potential for results exhibiting nonproportional hazards to be misinterpreted.

Off-Protocol Radiation Therapy in Phase 3 Metastatic Solid Tumor Trials.

PURPOSE: Increasing data suggest that radiation therapy, particularly ablative radiation therapy, alters the natural history of metastatic disease. For patients with metastatic disease enrolled in prospective trials testing systemic therapy, the use of off-protocol radiation therapy to improve clinical symptoms or extend the duration of study systemic therapy may influence study endpoints. We sought to evaluate how often off-protocol radiation therapy was permitted among systemic therapy phase 3 trials, how often off-protocol radiation therapy is used, and whether off-protocol radiation therapy correlated with study outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two-arm, superiority-design, phase 3 randomized trials testing systemic therapy were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Protocol availability was required to assess the trial approach to off-protocol radiation therapy if not described in the manuscript. Adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated by logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 112 trials enrolling 80,134 patients were included, with publication dates between 2010 and 2019. Of these, off-protocol radiation therapy was allowed, not discussed, or prohibited during study systemic therapy in 52% (N =58), 25% (N = 28), and 23% (N = 26) of trials, respectively. However, only 2% (2 of 112) of trials reported off-protocol radiation therapy utilization rates, although no data were reported on the use of ablative off-protocol radiation therapy. No trials evaluated or adjusted for the potential influence of off-protocol radiation therapy on study endpoints. Among the subset of open-label studies, trials permissive toward off-protocol radiation therapy were more likely to meet their primary endpoint (adjusted odds ratio, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.23-20.23; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Although most trials allowed off-protocol radiation therapy during the receipt of the study systemic therapy, the influence of off-protocol radiation therapy, especially ablative radiation therapy, on study outcomes is underevaluated among phase 3 systemic therapy trials.

Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials.

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design. SIGNIFICANCE: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).

Adding Metastasis-Directed Therapy to Standard-of-Care Systemic Therapy for Oligometastatic Breast Cancer (EXTEND): a Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Prior evidence suggests a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy for patients with some oligometastatic solid tumors. Randomized trials testing this hypothesis in breast cancer have yet to be published. We sought to determine whether adding MDT to SOC systemic therapy improves PFS in oligometastatic breast cancer. METHODS: EXTEND is a multicenter phase II randomized basket trial testing the addition of MDT to SOC systemic therapy in patients with ≤5 metastases (NCT03599765). Patients were randomized 1:1 to MDT (definitive local treatment to all sites of disease, plus SOC systemic therapy) or to SOC systemic therapy only. Primary endpoint was PFS, and secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), time to subsequent line of systemic therapy, and time to the appearance of new metastases. Exploratory analyses included quality of life (QOL) and systemic immune response measures. RESULTS: From September 2018 through July 2022, 22 and 21 patients were randomized to the MDT and no-MDT arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 24.8 months, PFS was not improved with the addition of MDT to SOC systemic therapy (median PFS 15.6 months MDT vs 24.9 months no-MDT [hazard ratio {HR} 0.91; 95% CI 0.34-2.48, p=0.86]). Similarly, MDT did not improve OS, time to subsequent line of systemic therapy, or time to the appearance of new metastases (all p>0.05). No significant differences were found in QOL measures, systemic T-cell activation, or T-cell stimulatory cytokine concentration. CONCLUSION: Among patients with oligometastatic breast cancer, the addition of MDT to SOC systemic therapy did not improve PFS. These findings suggest that MDT may have no systemic benefit in otherwise unselected oligometastatic breast cancer patients, although this trial was limited by a heterogenous and small sample size and overperformance of both treatment arms.

Association of differential censoring with survival and suboptimal control arms among oncology clinical trials.

Differential censoring, which refers to censoring imbalance between treatment arms, may bias the interpretation of survival outcomes in clinical trials. In 146 phase III oncology trials with statistically significant time-to-event surrogate primary endpoints, we evaluated the association between differential censoring in the surrogate primary endpoints, control arm adequacy, and the subsequent statistical significance of overall survival results. Twenty-four (16%) trials exhibited differential censoring that favored the control arm, whereas 15 (10%) exhibited differential censoring that favored the experimental arm. Positive overall survival was more common in control arm differential censoring trials (63%) than in trials without differential censoring (37%) or with experimental arm differential censoring (47%; odds ratio = 2.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 7.20; P = .04). Control arm differential censoring trials more frequently used suboptimal control arms at 46% compared with 20% without differential censoring and 13% with experimental arm differential censoring (odds ratio = 3.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.29 to 10.0; P = .007). The presence of control arm differential censoring in trials with surrogate primary endpoints, especially in those with overall survival conversion, may indicate an inadequate control arm and should be examined and explained.