RESUMEN
Introduction: There is debate on which are the best surrogate endpoint and metric to capture treatment effect on overall survival (OS) in RCTs testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: We systematically searched for RCTs testing ICIs in patients with advanced solid tumors. Inclusion criteria were: RCTs i) assessing PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors either as monotherapy or in combination with another ICI, and/or targeted therapy, and/or chemotherapy, in patients with advanced solid tumors; ii) randomizing at least 100 patients. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the surrogacy value of PFS and modified-PFS (mPFS) for OS in RCTs testing ICIs, when the treatment effect is measured by the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, and by the HR and the ratio of restricted mean survival time (rRMST) for PFS and mPFS. Results: 61 RCTs (67 treatment comparisons and 36,034 patients) were included in the analysis. In comparisons testing ICI plus chemotherapy, HRPFS and HRmPFS both had a strong surrogacy value (R2 = 0.74 and R2 = 0.81, respectively). In comparisons testing ICI as monotherapy, HRPFS was the best surrogate, although having a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.58). In comparisons testing ICI plus other treatment(s), the associations were very weak for all the surrogate endpoints and treatment effect measures, with R2 ranging from 0.01 to 0.22. Conclusion: In RCTs testing ICIs, the value of potential surrogates for HROS was strongly affected by the type of treatment(s) tested. The evidence available supports HRPFS as the best surrogate, and disproves the use of alternative endpoints, such as the mPFS, or treatment effect measures, such as the RMST.
Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico , Neoplasias , Humanos , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Biomarcadores , Modelos de Riesgos ProporcionalesRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Thymic malignancies are rare tumors with few therapeutic options. The STYLE trial was aimed to evaluate activity and safety of sunitinib in advanced or recurrent type B3 thymoma (T) and thymic carcinoma (TC). METHODS: In this multicenter, Simon 2 stages, phase 2 trial, patients with pretreated T or TC were enrolled in two cohorts and assessed separately. Sunitinib was administered 50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period (schedule 4/2), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival, overall survival, disease control rate and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: From March 2017 to January 2022, 12 patients with T and 32 patients with TC were enrolled. At stage 1, ORR was 0% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0-22.1) in T and 16.7% (90% CI: 3.1-43.8) in TC, so the T cohort was closed. At stage 2, the primary endpoint was met for TC with ORR of 21.7% (90% CI: 9.0%-40.4%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, disease control rate was 91.7% (95% CI: 61.5%-99.8%) in Ts and 89.3% (95% CI: 71.8%-97.7%) in TCs. Median progression-free survival was 7.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-45.5) in Ts and 8.8 months (95% CI: 5.3-11.1) in TCs; median overall survival was 47.9 months (95% CI: 4.5-not reached) in Ts and 27.8 months (95% CI: 13.2-53.2) in TCs. Adverse events occurred in 91.7% Ts and 93.5% TCs. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were reported in 25.0% Ts and 51.6% TCs. CONCLUSIONS: This trial confirms the activity of sunitinib in patients with TC, supporting its use as a second-line treatment, albeit with potential toxicity that requires dose adjustment.