Correlation of multiple endpoints in the first-line chemotherapy of advanced gastric cancer: Pooled analysis of individual patient data from Japanese Phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Individual-level surrogates are important for management in patients treated for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the correlation of multiple clinical endpoints in the first-line chemotherapy of AGC. METHODS: Individual patient data (IPD) were collected from four Japanese Phase III trials comparing S-1-based first-line chemotherapies (SPIRITS, START, GC0301/TOP-002, and G-SOX trials). Patients without Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based radiological assessments were excluded. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was tested for correlation among overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and postprogression survival (PPS). OS, PFS, and PPS were compared between responders (best response: complete response or partial response) and nonresponders (best response: stable disease or progressive disease). RESULTS: The study included a total of 1492 patients. Eighty percent of the patients (n = 1190) received subsequent chemotherapies after the failure of each trial's treatment protocol. PFS moderately correlated with OS (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.66, p < 0.005), whereas the correlation between PPS and OS was strong (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.87, p < 0.005). Responders had significantly longer OS (median, 17.7 vs. 9.1 months, p < 0.005), PFS (median, 6.9 vs. 2.8 months, p < 0.005), and PPS (median, 10.5 vs. 6.0 months, p < 0.005) than nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reacknowledged the mild surrogacy of PFS and importance of postprogression treatments in patients with AGC receiving first-line chemotherapy. Consistent longer survival outcomes in better RECIST categories suggested that tumor response might be a useful individual-level surrogate.

Meta-Enrichment Analyses to Identify Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Who Achieve a Higher Response to S-1/Cisplatin.

The Multicenter phase III comparison of cisplatin/S-1 with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma study (FLAGS) and the Diffuse Gastric and Esophagogastric Junction Cancer S-1 Trial (DIGEST) have shown that patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with S-1/Cisplatin (CS) have similar overall survival (OS) compared to 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin (CF). The purpose of this analysis was to identify patients who may specifically benefit from CS using meta-enrichment analysis of the combined two datasets. Eleven clinico-pathological factors were selected and a high response enrichable population was determined. The efficacy of CS in the combined data set of 1365 patients (n = 1019 from FLAGS and n = 346 from DIGEST) was analyzed. We identified 683 patients (n = 374 from CS, n = 309 from CF) as the high response enrichable population who were classified as those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 1, more than two metastatic sites and low neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (log(NL ratio)). In the high response enrichable population, the median OS in the CS group was 241 days compared to 210 days in the CF group (hazard ratio 0.776; 95% confidence interval 0.658 to 0.915; p-value 0.004). Through meta-enrichment analysis, the high response enrichable population to CS was identified. Our findings show the clinical importance of selecting the appropriate treatment based on specific patient characteristics.

S-1 versus placebo in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (S-CUBE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is a heterogeneous disease, for which sorafenib is the first targeted agent approved for first-line therapy, and treatment options for patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of S-1, a chemotherapeutic agent based on fluorouracil, in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 57 sites in Japan. Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were ineligible for surgical or local-regional therapy and judged refractory to sorafenib (ie, had progressed on sorafenib or had discontinued sorafenib because of adverse events) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral S-1 (weight-banded 80 mg/m2 [80-120 mg per day]), or placebo, twice per day for 28 days consecutively, followed by a minimum 14 day drug-free period. This cycle was repeated until disease progression or the patient became intolerant to the study treatment. Patients were stratified by site and presence or absence of extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all patients who were treated with study drug except any individuals who were found not to have hepatocellular carcinoma or who were found to have active double cancer). Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Blinding was maintained even after study treatment concluded. This study is registered with JapicCTI, number JapicCTI-090920, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2009, and Aug 22, 2012, we screened 399 patients. 65 patients were excluded due to not meeting criteria (n=61), declining to participate (n=3), or other reasons (n=1). 334 patients were randomly assigned to receive either S-1 (n=223) or placebo (n=111). One patient in the S-1 group did not receive treatment, and was thus excluded from analyses. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 32·4 months (IQR 24·0-34·7) in the S-1 group and 32·9 months (23·7-39·5) in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·7-13·1) in the S-1 group and 11·2 months (9·2-12·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·67-1·10; p=0·220). The most frequently reported adverse events were skin hyperpigmentation (123 [55%] of 222 patients in the S-1 group vs nine [8%] of 111 patients in the placebo group), decreased appetite (104 [47%] vs 21 [19%]), fatigue (102 [46%] vs 20 [18%]), diarrhoea (77 [35%] vs 14 [13%]), and increased blood bilirubin (77 [35%] vs 14 [13%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 90 (41%) of 222 patients in the S-1 group and 24 (22%) of 111 patients in the placebo group. Five treatment-related deaths were reported in the S-1 group. INTERPRETATION: S-1 did not prolong overall survival in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Further research is needed to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit from S-1. FUNDING: Taiho Pharmaceuticals.

Traditional Risk Factors Versus Biomarkers for Prediction of Secondary Events in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: From the Heart and Soul Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD) have widely varying prognoses and treatment options. Validated models for risk stratification of patients with CHD are needed. We sought to evaluate traditional and novel risk factors as predictors of secondary cardiovascular (CV) events, and to develop a prediction model that could be used to risk stratify patients with stable CHD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used independent derivation (912 participants in the Heart and Soul Study) and validation (2876 participants in the PEACE trial) cohorts of patients with stable CHD to develop a risk prediction model using Cox proportional hazards models. The outcome was CV events, defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death. The annual rate of CV events was 3.4% in the derivation cohort and 2.2% in the validation cohort. With the exception of smoking, traditional risk factors (including age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes) did not emerge as the top predictors of secondary CV events. The top 4 predictors of secondary events were the following: N-terminal pro-type brain natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, and current smoking. The 5-year C-index for this 4-predictor model was 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.65 in the validation cohort. As compared with variables in the Framingham secondary events model, the Heart and Soul risk model resulted in net reclassification improvement of 0.47 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.73) in the derivation cohort and 0.18 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.40) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Novel risk factors are superior to traditional risk factors for predicting 5-year risk of secondary events in patients with stable CHD.

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder. METHODS: PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00887588. FINDINGS: 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL [95% CI 670-914], 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL [512-714]; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL [733-1012], 12 weeks, 835 [710-981]; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively. FUNDING: Novartis.