Application of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design in older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib therapy is safe and effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Currently, ibrutinib is administered continuously until disease progression. Combination regimens with ibrutinib are being developed to deepen response which could allow for ibrutinib maintenance (IM) discontinuation. Among untreated older patients with CLL, clinical investigators had the following questions: (i) does ibrutinib + venetoclax + obinutuzumab (IVO) with IM have superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with ibrutinib + obinutuzumab (IO) with IM, and (ii) does the treatment strategy of IVO + IM for patients without minimal residual disease complete response (MRD- CR) or IVO + IM discontinuation for patients with MRD- CR have superior PFS compared with IO + IM. DESIGN: Conventional designs randomize patients to IO with IM or IVO with IM to address the first objective, or randomize patients to each treatment strategy to address the second objective. A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design and analysis is proposed to address both objectives. RESULTS: A SMART design strategy is appropriate when comparing adaptive interventions, which are defined by an individual's sequence of treatment decisions and guided by intermediate outcomes, such as response to therapy. A review of common applications of SMART design strategies is provided. Specific to the SMART design previously considered for Alliance study A041702, the general structure of the SMART is presented, an approach to sample size and power calculations when comparing adaptive interventions embedded in the SMART with a time-to-event end point is fully described, and analyses plans are outlined. CONCLUSION: SMART design strategies can be used in cancer clinical trials with adaptive interventions to identify optimal treatment strategies. Further, standard software exists to provide sample size, power calculations, and data analysis for a SMART design.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: Value of adverse events relatedness to study treatment: analyses of data from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Collection and reporting of adverse events (AEs) and their relatedness to study treatment, known commonly as attribution, in clinical trials is mandated by regulatory agencies (the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration). Attribution is assigned by the treating physician using judgment based on various factors including patient's baseline status, disease history, and comorbidity as well as knowledge about the safety profile of the study treatments. We evaluate the patterns of AE attribution (unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably, and definitely related to the treatment) in treatment, symptom intervention (cancer patients) and cancer prevention (participants at high risk for cancer) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine multicenter placebo-controlled trials (two treatment, two symptom intervention, and five cancer prevention) were analysed separately (2155 patients). Frequency and severity of AEs were summarized by arm. Attribution and percentage of repeated AEs whose attribution changed overtime were summarized for the placebo arms. Percentage of physician over- or under-reporting of AE relatedness was calculated for the treatment arms using the placebo arm as the reference. RESULTS: Across all trials and settings, a very high proportion of AEs reported as related to treatment were classified as possibly related, a significant proportion of AEs in the placebo arm were incorrectly reported as related to treatment, and clinician-reported attribution over-estimated the rate of AEs related to treatment. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and neurosensory were the common AEs that were over reported by clinician as related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate that assigning causality to AE is a complex and difficult process that produces unreliable and subjective data. In randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials where data are available to objectively assess relatedness of AE to treatment, attribution assignment should be eliminated.

An Inherited Genetic Variant in CEP72 Promoter Predisposes to Vincristine-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Adults With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Peripheral neuropathy is a major toxicity of vincristine, yet no strategies exist for identifying adult patients at high-risk. We used a case-control design of 48 adults receiving protocol therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who developed vincristine-induced neuropathy (NCI grade 2-4) during treatment, and 48 matched controls who did not develop grade 2-4 neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy was prospectively graded by National Cancer Institute (NCI) criteria. CEP72 promoter genotype (rs924607) was determined using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. Frequency of the CEP72 T/T genotype was higher in cases (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.0221) and the incidence of vincristine-induced neuropathy (grades 2-4) was significantly higher in patients homozygous for the CEP72 T/T genotype. 75% of the 20 patients homozygous for the CEP72 T allele developed grade 2-4 neuropathy, compared to 44% of patients with CEP72 CC or CT genotype (P = 0.0221). The CEP72 polymorphism can identify adults at increased risk of vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy.

A phase III randomized trial of thalidomide plus zoledronic acid versus zoledronic acid alone in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma.

Patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma (AMM) have a high risk of transformation to active multiple myeloma (MM). Bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid (ZLD) reduce skeletal events in MM and the immunomodulatory agent thalidomide (Thal) has proven effectiveness in active MM. We hypothesized that treatment with Thal and ZLD would prolong the time to progression (TTP) to MM over ZLD alone. Eligible patients had asymptomatic MM and all patients received ZLD 4 mg intravenous monthly; the treatment arm also received Thal 200 mg per day. The TTP was superior for Thal/ZLD (n=35) patients compared with ZLD alone (n=33); median TTP of 2.4 years (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-3.6) versus 1.2 years (95% CI: 0.7-2.5) (hazard ratio (HR), 2.05; 95% CI: 1.1-3.8; P-value: 0.02). At 1 year, 86% of Thal/ZLD patients were progression free compared with 55% on ZLD alone (P=0.0048). The overall response rate after year 1 was 37% for Thal/ZLD with a median duration of response of 3.3 years (95% CI: 1.1-NA); there were no confirmed responses to ZLD alone (P=0.0004). The addition of Thal to standard ZLD produces anti-tumor responses whereas ZLD alone does not. Thal/ZLD also prolongs TTP from AMM to MM. This study provides the rationale for further studies in patients with AMM to delay chemotherapy.

Melphalan and prednisone versus melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide for elderly and/or transplant ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis.

Trials comparing efficacy of melphalan prednisone (MP) with MP plus thalidomide in transplant ineligible, elderly patients with multiple myeloma have provided conflicting evidence. Although there is agreement regarding improved response rates (RRs) and higher toxicity with the addition of thalidomide to MP, the impact on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is less clear. We performed a meta-analysis comparing efficacy of melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) and MP by pooling results on RR, PFS and OS reported in all the identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) under a random effects model. Overall, six prospective RCTs, with data extractable from five published trials (n=1571) [corrected] were identified. The pooled odds ratio of responding to therapy with MPT vs MP was 3.39 (P<0.001, 95% CI: 2.24-5.12). The pooled hazard ratios for PFS and OS were and 0.68 (P<0.001; 95% CI: 0.55-0.82) and 0.80 (P=0.07; 95% CI: 0.63-1.02), respectively, in favor of MPT. The odds ratios for high grade peripheral neuropathy and deep venous thrombosis were 6.6 and 2.4, respectively, in favour of MP. There was significant heterogeneity among the RCTs. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that in previously untreated, transplant ineligible, elderly myeloma patients, the addition of T to MP results in significantly improved RR and PFS with a trend towards improvement in OS compared with MP alone, but at a cost of significantly greater toxicity.

Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM).

Patients with multiple myeloma progressing on current therapies have limited treatment options. Pomalidomide (CC4047), an immunomodulatory drug, has significant activity in relapsed myeloma and previous studies suggest activity in lenalidomide refractory disease. To better define its efficacy in this group, we treated a cohort of lenalidomide refractory patients. Pomalidomide was given orally (2 mg) daily, continuously in 28-day cycles along with dexamethasone (40 mg) given weekly. Responses were assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group Criteria. Thirty-four patients were enrolled. The best response was very good partial response in 3 (9%), partial response (PR) in 8 (23%), best responses (MR) in 5 (15%), stable disease in 12 (35%) and progressive disease in 6 (18%), for an overall response rate of 47%. Of the 14 patients that were considered high risk, 8 (57%) had responses including 4 PR and 4 MR. The median time to response was 2 months and response duration was 9.1 months, respectively. The median overall survival was 13.9 months. Toxicity was primarily hematologic, with grade 3 or 4 toxicity seen in 18 patients (53%) consisting of anemia (12%), thrombocytopenia (9%) and neutropenia (26%). The combination of pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is highly active and well tolerated in patients with lenalidomide-refractory myeloma.

A phase II trial of imatinib (ST1571) in patients with c-kit expressing relapsed small-cell lung cancer: a CALGB and NCCTG study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical activity of imatinib mesylate in patients with recurrent and refractory c-kit-expressing small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with c-kit-expressing SCLC (> or =1+ by immunohistochemistry) were enrolled in two groups. Arm A included patients with disease progression <3 months and arm B included patients with disease progression > or =3 months after previous treatment. Imatinib was administered at a dose of 400 mg b.i.d. continuously, with a cycle length of 28 days. A single stage Simon design with a planned interim analysis was used to evaluate the 16-week progression free rate in each arm. RESULTS: A total of 29 evaluable patients were entered into the study (seven in arm A, median age 68; 22 in arm B, median age 64.5). Median number of treatment cycles was one in both arms. Grade 3+ non-hematologic adverse events were seen in 15 (52%) patients, with nausea, vomiting, dyspnea, fatigue, anorexia and dehydration each occurring in at least 10% of patients. Median survival was 3.9 and 5.3 months and median time to progression was 1 and 1.1 months for arms A and B, respectively. Enrollment to arm A was temporarily suspended prior to reaching interim analysis due to striking early disease progression (29%), early deaths (29%) and patient refusal (42%). No objective responses and no confirmed stable disease > or =6 weeks were seen in either arm. Accrual was permanently terminated to both arms as only one patient was progression-free at 16 weeks. CONCLUSION: Imatinib failed to demonstrate any clinical activity in spite of patient selection for c-kit-expressing SCLC. Our results strengthen the collective evidence that prediction of efficacy of novel therapeutic agents based on target expression, rather than pathway activation (for example, through activating mutations), may not be a valid paradigm for drug development.