A Th1/IFNγ Gene Signature Is Prognostic in the Adjuvant Setting of Resectable High-Risk Melanoma but Not in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Immune components of the tumor microenvironment (TME) have been associated with disease outcome. We prospectively evaluated the association of an immune-related gene signature (GS) with clinical outcome in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumor samples from two phase III studies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The GS was prospectively validated using an adaptive signature design to optimize it for the sample type and technology used in phase III studies. One-third of the samples were used as "training set"; the remaining two thirds, constituting the "test set," were used for the prospective validation of the GS. RESULTS: In the melanoma training set, the expression level of eight Th1/IFNγ-related genes in tumor-positive lymph node tissue predicted the duration of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the placebo arm. This GS was prospectively and independently validated as prognostic in the test set. Building a multivariate Cox model in the test set placebo patients from clinical covariates and the GS score, an increased number of melanoma-involved lymph nodes and the GS were associated with DFS and OS. This GS was not associated with DFS in NSCLC, although expression of the Th1/IFNγ-related genes was associated with the presence of lymphocytes in tumor samples in both indications. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence that expression of Th1/IFNγ genes in the TME, as measured by this GS, is associated with clinical outcome in melanoma. This suggests that, using this GS, patients with stage IIIB/C melanoma can be classified into different risk groups.

RECIST 1.1 for Response Evaluation Apply Not Only to Chemotherapy-Treated Patients But Also to Targeted Cancer Agents: A Pooled Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: The mode of action of targeted cancer agents (TCAs) differs from classic chemotherapy, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs. We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials with at least one TCA. METHODS: We examined the impact of the number of target lesions (TLs) on within-patient variability of tumor response. The prognostic effect of TL response (at 12 weeks or on study on the basis of a maximum five TLs) on survival was studied through landmark and time-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal progression of nontarget disease. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 23,259 patients with cancer (36% lung, 28% colorectal, 11% breast, and 25% other); 15,620 received TCAs, predominantly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, as a single agent (37%), combined with other TCAs (7%), or as chemotherapy (56%); 28% received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo. A total of 17,222 patients contributed to the analyses. Within-patient variability decreased with increasing number of TLs, similarly for TCAs (with/without chemotherapy) and chemotherapy only. Mixed responses occurred proportionally in all treatment classes. Landmark analyses showed an ordinal relationship between percentage change from baseline to 12 weeks and overall survival, and demonstrated a clear distinction between tumor shrinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST. Time-dependent analysis showed no marked improvement in the ability to predict survival on the basis of TL tumor growth compared with nontarget progression or new lesion occurrence, regardless of treatment. Similar results were seen for major tumor types and different classes of TCAs. CONCLUSION: This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment of TCAs.

MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, MAGE-A3-positive, stage III melanoma (DERMA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 µg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 µg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3-35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7-36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0-11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6-14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88-1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7-17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6-22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83-1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

The Servier oncology pipeline in 2017.

Cancer is a complex, multifactorial disease that for years has been the focus of intensive research efforts to explore both the molecular and biological mechanisms involved and the development of novel agents to target these pathways. Servier is an independent French pharmaceutical company with a focus on oncology. Currently, Servier's commercial portfolio includes agents used to treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and metastatic colorectal cancer; Servier's oncology pipeline involves agents for the treatment of both solid and hematological tumors. The main areas of future research focus on the development of therapeutics targeting apoptosis or the active immune components involved in tumour development/maintenance. Servier intends to continue its focus on cutting-edge oncology innovation by collaborating with both industry and academia, and maintaining its strong patient-centered approach.

iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics.

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of the patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are cured. Since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy in 2004, no substantial progress has been made in adjuvant treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic in surgically resected NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with completely resected stage IB, II, and IIIA MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC who did or did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy from 443 centres in 34 countries (Europe, the Americas, and Asia Pacific). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 13 intramuscular injections of recMAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic) or placebo during 27 months. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator site was done centrally via internet with stratification for chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. A minimisation algorithm accounted for the number of chemotherapy cycles received, disease stage, lymph node sampling procedure, performance status score, and lifetime smoking status. The primary endpoint was broken up into three co-primary objectives: disease-free survival in the overall population, the no-chemotherapy population, and patients with a potentially predictive gene signature. The final analyses included the total treated population (all patients who had received at least one treatment dose). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00480025. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2007, and July 17, 2012, we screened 13 849 patients for MAGE-A3 expression; 12 820 had a valid sample and of these, 4210 (33%) had a MAGE-A3-positive tumour. 2312 of these patients met all eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment: 1515 received MAGE-A3 and 757 received placebo and 40 were randomly assigned but never started treatment. 784 patients in the MAGE-A3 group also received chemotherapy, as did 392 in the placebo group. Median follow-up was 38·1 months (IQR 27·9-48·4) in the MAGE-A3 group and 39·5 months (27·9-50·4) in the placebo group. In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 60·5 months (95% CI 57·2-not reached) for the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic group and 57·9 months (55·7-not reached) for the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). Of the patients who did not receive chemotherapy, median disease-free survival was 58·0 months (95% CI 56·6-not reached) in those in the MAGE-A3 group and 56·9 months (44·4-not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18; p=0·76). Because of the absence of treatment effect, we could not identify a gene signature predictive of clinical benefit to MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar between treatment groups (246 [16%] of 1515 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 122 [16%] of 757 in the placebo group). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were infections and infestations (37 [2%] in the MAGE-A3 group and 19 [3%] in the placebo group), vascular disorders (30 [2%] vs 17 [3%]), and neoplasm (benign, malignant, and unspecified (29 [2%] vs 16 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic did not increase disease-free survival compared with placebo in patients with MAGE-A3-positive surgically resected NSCLC. Based on our results, further development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in NSCLC has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee.

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.

RECIST 1.1 - Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group.

Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials. The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases. The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker. Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation.

Rates of MAGE-A3 and PRAME expressing tumors in FFPE tissue specimens from bladder cancer patients: potential targets for antigen-specific cancer immunotherapeutics.

INTRODUCTION: Antigen-specific active immunotherapy is an investigational therapeutic approach of potential interest for bladder cancer regardless of disease stage. Clinical development of antigen-specific immunotherapeutics against bladder cancer must be preceded by assessment of the expression of relevant genes in bladder tumors. The objectives of this study (NCT01706185) were to assess the rate of expression of the MAGE-A3 and PRAME genes in bladder tumors and to investigate the feasibility of using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues for testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Archived FFPE bladder tumor specimens (any stage) were tested for mRNA expression of MAGE-A3 and PRAME using antigen-specific quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. Data on patients and tumor characteristics were obtained from hospital records to investigate these characteristics' possible association with the antigen expression. RESULTS: Over 92% of the 156 tumors examined gave valid antigen test results. Of the tumors with a valid test, 46.5% were MAGE-A3-positive, 32.2% were PRAME-positive and 59.7% positive for at least one of them. Exploratory analyses of possible associations between antigen expression and patient or tumor characteristics did not identify clear associations between antigen expression and any of the variables investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of tumor antigen mRNA expression by using FFPE bladder tissues was feasible. The rates of MAGE-A3-positive and PRAME-positive tumors indicate that both antigens may be interesting targets for immunotherapeutics against bladder cancer.

Recommendations for capture, validation and summarisation of data from studies using RECIST.

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used in oncology clinical trials and provides a standard approach for the assessment of treatment. However, data capture, validation and summarisation are complex. This article focuses on managing solid tumour lesion and response assessment data from capture through summarisation. Conventions for capturing lesion data, as well as considerations for data validation and summarisation, are provided. Recommendations are based on a review of data capture forms (including data items and instructions), data validation practices and algorithms for data summarisation across solid tumour studies at a single company. The intent of the authors is to share our experiences at GSK in the spirit of harmonisation by transparently describing our decisions and methods.

Pattern of care in locally advanced breast cancer: focus on local therapy.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The optimal treatment of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) remains undetermined. We analyzed factors influencing local therapy in LABC in a pooled material including three large clinical series. RESULTS: Of a total of 787 patients, local therapy was given in 604, surgery in 184, radiotherapy in 69, and a combination thereof in 351. The use of local therapy was related to younger age, lower clinical T and N stage, no skin involvement and no progression during induction chemotherapy. The use of surgery was related to younger age, lower clinical T and N stage, no clinical skin involvement and response to induction chemotherapy. The use of postoperative radiotherapy was correlated with larger tumor size, higher number of positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margin, extracapsular lymph node extension, lymphatic vessel invasion and skin involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent local therapy in LABC remains a combination of surgery and radiotherapy. Clinical and pathological characteristics influence the type of local treatment.

Improving cancer outcomes through international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials.

PURPOSE: The need for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger as we have made progress both in cancer treatment and screening. We sought to identify those efforts already underway which facilitate such collaboration, as well as barriers to greater collaboration. METHODS: We reviewed the collective experiences of many cooperative groups, governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic investigators in their work to build international collaboration in cancer clinical trials across multiple disease sites. RESULTS: More than a decade of work has led to effective global harmonization for many of the elements critical to cancer clinical trials. Many barriers remain, but effective international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials should become the norm, rather than the exception. CONCLUSION: Our ability to strengthen international collaborations will result in maximization of our resources and patients, permitting us to change practice by establishing more effective therapeutic strategies. Regulatory, logistical, and financial hurdles, however, often hamper the conduct of joint trials. We must work together as a global community to overcome these barriers so that we may continue to improve cancer treatment for patients around the world.

Cancer clinical trial outcomes: any progress in tumour-size assessment?

Cancer for many patients is still a lethal disease, and we are at the edge of the time that it will be the leading cause of death in the western world. One of the hallmarks of cancer is its ability to spread to other organs, turning cancer in essence to a systemic disease. For this reason, systemic therapy plays an important role in our efforts to either obtain cure or to prolong life and palliate symptoms. The ultimate goal in the development of such new treatments is cure or prolongation of life, but the process to ascertain this may be lengthy. This presents a limitation to the rapid assessment of the potential benefit of new cancer treatments, which is why investigators and regulators have been interested in clinical trial measures that could provide early readouts of drug activity or efficacy, in other words for surrogate indicators for the ultimately desired outcome.

Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.

BACKGROUND: After the initial RECIST 1.0 were published in 2000, the criteria were widely implemented in the scientific oncology community. Since then, the RECIST working group has identified several issues to examine further. Two key issues that required careful, data-based assessment were the maximum number of lesions that should be assessed at each evaluation and the added value of requiring confirmation of response. METHODS: To address these questions, data were obtained from 16 clinical trials in metastatic cancer, with patients enrolled between 1993 and 2005. A total of 6512 patients were included in the primary analysis dataset, accounting for over 18,000 potential target lesions. Nine percent of the included patients (n=585) had six or more reported target lesions. The response and progression outcomes in the database were calculated using an adjusted RECIST methodology with a maximum of 5 (or 3) target lesions with/without confirmation and this was compared to the original RECIST version 1.0 which required up to 10 target lesions plus confirmation of response. RESULTS: Assessment of 5 lesions per patient led to a difference in best overall response assignment for an estimated 209 (3.2%) patients as compared to RECIST version 1.0. However, these changes did not affect the overall response rate. Progression-free survival was only minimally affected by measuring fewer lesions. In contrast, removing the requirement for response confirmation led to a significant increase in the numbers of patients classified as responders, resulting in a relative increase of approximately 19% in response rate. An algorithm using a maximum of three target lesions shows high concordance with the 10 lesions requirement in terms of response and TTP assignment. Concern that appropriate assessment of disease within an organ requires two lesions to be followed per organ suggests the approach of following two target lesions per organ, up to a maximum of five target lesions overall. Both strategies seem reasonable based on the data warehouse. The requirement of response confirmation in trials where this is a primary end-point is recommended to be maintained as its removal would substantially increase reported response rates.

Phase III study comparing exemestane with tamoxifen as first-line hormonal treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane versus the antiestrogen tamoxifen as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 81 centers and enrolled postmenopausal patients with measurable hormone-sensitive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer. Prior adjuvant chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen were allowed. One previous chemotherapy regimen and no prior hormone therapy for advanced disease were permitted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients enrolled at 79 sites (182 exemestane, 189 tamoxifen) were included in the analysis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated without major toxicity. Overall response rate was greater for exemestane than for tamoxifen treatment (46% v 31%; odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.82; P = .005). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with exemestane (9.9 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 11.8 months) than with tamoxifen (5.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months). However, these early differences (Wilcoxon P = .028) did not translate to a longer-term benefit in PFS, the primary study end point (log-rank P = .121). There was also no difference in survival between both study arms. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an effective and well-tolerated first-line hormonal treatment for postmenopausal women with MBC and offers significant early improvement in time to tumor progression when compared with tamoxifen.

Taxanes alone or in combination with anthracyclines as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) have been sequenced or combined with anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin) for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. This meta-analysis uses data from all relevant trials to detect any advantages of taxanes in terms of tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on eight randomized combination trials comparing anthracyclines + taxanes (+ cyclophosphamide in one trial) with anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (+ fluorouracil in four trials), and on three single-agent trials comparing taxanes with anthracyclines. Combination trials included 3,034 patients; single-agent trials included 919 patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up of living patients was 43 months, median survival was 19.3 months, and median PFS was 7.1 months. In single-agent trials, response rates were similar in the taxanes (38%) and in the anthracyclines (33%) arms (P = .08). The hazard ratios for taxanes compared with anthracyclines were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36; P = .011) for PFS and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90) for survival. In combination trials, response rates were 57% (10% complete) in taxane-based combinations and 46% (6% complete) in control arms (P < .001). The hazard ratios for taxane-based combinations compared with control arms were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99; P = .031) for PFS and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.03; P = .24) for survival. CONCLUSION: Taxanes were significantly worse than single-agent anthracyclines in terms of PFS, but not in terms of response rates or survival. Taxane-based combinations were significantly better than anthracycline-based combinations in terms of response rates and PFS, but not in terms of survival.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance, costs, and impact on therapy of one-step magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the axial skeleton (MRIas) for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with high-risk PCa prospectively underwent MRIas in addition to the standard sequential work-up (SW) of bone metastases (technetium-99m bone scintigraphy [BS] completed with targeted x-rays [TXR] in patients with equivocal BS findings and with MRI obtained on request [MRIor] in patients with inconclusive BS/TXR findings). Panel review of initial and 6-month follow-up MRI findings, BS/TXR, and all available baseline and follow-up clinical and biologic data were used as the best valuable comparator to define metastatic status. Diagnostic effectiveness of MRIas alone was compared with each step of the SW. Impact of MRIas screening on patient management and costs was evaluated. RESULTS: On the basis of the best valuable comparator, 41 patients (62%) had bone metastases. Sensitivities were 46% for BS alone, 63% for BS/TXR, 83% for BS/TXR/MRIor, and 100% for MRIas; the corresponding specificities were 32%, 64%, 100%, and 88%, respectively. MRIas was significantly more sensitive than any other approach (P < .05, McNemar). MRIas identified metastases in seven (30%) of 23 patients considered negative and eight (47%) of 17 patients considered equivocal by other strategies, which altered the initially planned therapy. Economic impact was variable among countries, depending on reimbursement rates. CONCLUSION: MRIas is more sensitive than the current SW of radiographically identified bone metastases in high-risk PCa patients, which impacts the clinical management of a significant proportion of patients.

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant tamoxifen versus nil for patients with operable breast cancer: a randomised phase III trial of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Group.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of adjuvant tamoxifen in breast cancer patients after receiving adjuvant chemotherapy is not fully established. We investigated the impact of tamoxifen, given sequentially after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 1991 and June 1999, 1863 women with stages I-IIIA operable breast cancer who had undergone surgery and completed six cycles of adjuvant combination chemotherapy with either CMF, CAF, CEF, FAC or FEC were randomised to receive either tamoxifen 20 mg daily for 3 years or no further treatment. Irrespective of menstrual status and hormone receptor content of the primary tumour, patients were stratified by institute, chemotherapy scheme and age (above 50 years or younger). The main end-point was to detect a 5% increase in the 5 year survival (from 80% to 85%) in favour of antioestrogen therapy. Secondary end-points were relapse free survival (RFS), local control, incidence of second primary breast cancer and correlation of results with hormone receptor content. RESULTS: After exclusion of all patients from three sites because of inadequate documentation, a total of 1724 patients (93%) were analysed (Tam 861 and Control 863). At a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 5-year RFS on tamoxifen was 73% versus 67% in controls (p=0.035). No difference was seen in overall survival. The benefit of tamoxifen therapy was mainly seen in the subgroup of patients with histologically documented positive axillary nodes (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 71% versus 64% in the control group, p=0.044) and in patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 77% versus 70% in the control group, p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen administered for 3 years after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in this otherwise unselected group of patients for endocrine sensitivity had a limited impact on relapse and had no detectable effect on overall survival. The beneficial effect of tamoxifen is mainly confined to the subgroup of patients with node-positive disease and to patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype.