A weighted log-rank test and associated effect estimator for cancer trials with delayed treatment effect.

The standard log-rank test has been extended by adopting various weight functions. Cancer vaccine or immunotherapy trials have shown a delayed onset of effect for the experimental therapy. This is manifested as a delayed separation of the survival curves. This work proposes new weighted log-rank tests to account for such delay. The weight function is motivated by the time-varying hazard ratio between the experimental and the control therapies. We implement a numerical evaluation of the Schoenfeld approximation (NESA) for the mean of the test statistic. The NESA enables us to assess the power and to calculate the sample size for detecting such delayed treatment effect and also for a more general specification of the non-proportional hazards in a trial. We further show a connection between our proposed test and the weighted Cox regression. Then the average hazard ratio using the same weight is obtained as an estimand of the treatment effect. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to compare the performance of the proposed tests with the standard log-rank test and to assess their robustness to model mis-specifications. Our tests outperform the Gρ,γ class in general and have performance close to the optimal test. We demonstrate our methods on two cancer immunotherapy trials.

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A Systematic Review of Adaptive Seamless Clinical Trials for Late-Phase Oncology Development.

INTRODUCTION: Although oncology has seen large scientific and clinical advances over the last decade, it also has one of the lowest success rates for novel agents across therapeutic areas. Adaptive clinical trial design has been a popular option for increasing clinical trial efficiency and the chances of trial success. Seamless clinical trial design are studies in which two or more clinical trial phases are combined into a single study with a pre-specified transition between stages. This integration of phases may enhance efficiency. METHODS: To understand the precedent for the use of seamless designs, this working group was formed to conduct a comprehensive literature search on seamless clinical trials conducted with confirmatory intent in oncology. Trial design features were extracted into a database and analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A literature search identified 68 clinical trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common design feature was a gate on treatment efficacy, where the trial would only proceed to the second stage if sufficient efficacy was observed in the first. The next most common feature was a selection of a dose or treatment regimen. Inferentially and operationally seamless designs were approximately equally represented. DISCUSSION: Key statistical considerations for seamless phase II/III designs include optimizing design choices by evaluating and comparing operating characteristics across design alternatives as well as showing control of overall Type I error rates. Executing the transition between phases should be evaluated for issues related to accrual, drug production, and procedures to maintain trial integrity. CONCLUSIONS: While there are unique statistical, regulatory, and operational considerations for seamless designs they are also uniquely suited to many development settings. These include, for example, addressing dose selection under FDA's Project Optimus and addressing the growing use of biomarkers and personalized medicine approaches in cancer treatment.

Use of Seamless Study Designs in Oncology Clinical Development- A Survey Conducted by IDSWG Oncology Sub-team.

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making. The Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (IDSWG) Oncology team conducted a survey to understand the current use of seamless study designs for registration purposes in oncology clinical development. The survey was designed to provide insights into the benefits and to identify the roadblocks. A total of 16 questions were included in the survey that was distributed using the ASA Biopharmaceutical Section and IDSWG email listings from August to September 2022. A total of 51 responses were received, with 39 (76%) respondents indicating that their organizations had seamless oncology studies in planning or implementation for registration purposes. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript. Overall, while seamless designs offer advantages in terms of timeline reduction and cost saving, they also present challenges related to additional complexity and the need for efficient surrogate clinical endpoints in oncology drug development.

Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.

Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21-1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73-1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86-1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.

Exposure-Response Analyses of Tremelimumab Monotherapy or in Combination with Durvalumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A novel single-dose regimen of 300 mg tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab [Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE)] has demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in the phase I/II Study 22 (NCT02519348) and phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, exposure-response, and exposure-pharmacodynamics relationships of tremelimumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A previous tremelimumab population pharmacokinetic model was validated using data from parts 2 and 3 of Study 22. Exposure-response analyses explored relationships of tremelimumab exposure with efficacy and safety. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics relationships were evaluated using linear and nonlinear regression models. RESULTS: The observed pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab in uHCC were consistent with predictions; no significant covariates were identified. Tremelimumab exposure was not significantly associated with adverse events, objective response rate, or progression-free survival. Overall survival (OS) was longer for patients with tremelimumab exposure, minimum serum drug concentration (Cmin1) ≥ median versus Cmin1 < median (18.99 months vs. 10.97 months), but this exposure-survival analysis might be confounded with baseline characteristics of albumin level and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, which had a significant impact on OS (P = 0.0004 and 0.0001, respectively). The predicted Cmin1 of tremelimumab in STRIDE regimen (12.9 µg/mL) was greater than the estimated concentration of tremelimumab eliciting half-maximal increases (EC50 = 5.24 µg/mL) in CD8+Ki67+ T-cell counts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support novel insights into tremelimumab pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships in HCC and support the clinical utility of the STRIDE regimen in patients with uHCC.

Tumor Mutational Burden as a Predictor of Survival with Durvalumab and/or Tremelimumab Treatment in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers that predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) are needed. This retrospective study assessed tumor mutational burden (TMB) and outcomes in the phase II HAWK and CONDOR and phase III EAGLE studies of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in platinum-resistant R/M HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor samples from HAWK/CONDOR (N = 153) and blood samples from EAGLE (N = 247) were analyzed for TMB. Associations with survival were evaluated for tissue TMB (tTMB) at cutoffs from 10 to 20 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb) and for blood plasma TMB (bTMB) at cutoffs from 8 to 24 mut/Mb. RESULTS: In HAWK/CONDOR, overall survival (OS) with durvalumab with or without tremelimumab was longer for high versus low tTMB: statistically significant differences were observed with durvalumab plus tremelimumab at tTMB ≥ 10 mut/Mb [HR, 0.52 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.28-0.98)] and tTMB ≥ 12 mut/Mb [HR, 0.46 (95% CI, 0.24-0.86)]. In EAGLE, a significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy was observed with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab at bTMB≥16 mut/Mb [HR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.20-0.76) and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.19-0.78), respectively] but not bTMB < 16 mut/Mb [HR, 0.92 (0.61-1.37) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.36), respectively]. A significant progression-free survival benefit was also observed in the ICI arms versus chemotherapy at bTMB ≥ 16 mut/Mb. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support TMB as a biomarker for predicting survival in patients with platinum-resistant R/M HNSCC treated with ICIs. The analysis of EAGLE demonstrated that bTMB was predictive of survival with ICI treatment versus chemotherapy in a large, randomized controlled study population.

Research productivity and impact of Canadian academic ophthalmologists: trends in H-index, gender, subspecialty, and faculty appointment.

OBJECTIVE: H-index has historically functioned as a metric of academic success for acquisition of research grants, awards, and faculty appointments. Our objective was to characterize the landscape of Canadian academic ophthalmology on the basis of research productivity and impact-as measured by H-index-with gender, subspecialty, and faculty appointment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on data abstracted from publicly available databases. PARTICIPANTS: Academic ophthalmologists from all schools in Canada with an ophthalmology residency program. METHODS: Academic ophthalmologists and their faculty appointments were identified from university websites. gender was determined from available provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons or ophthalmology society databases. H-indices were collected from Scopus and Web of Science. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were used to analyze the relationship of H-index with gender, faculty appointment, and subspecialty. RESULTS: We included data from 696 academic ophthalmologists. The mean H-indices for lecturers and assistant, associate, and full professors were 4.0 (±5.6), 5.6 (±5.0), 8.8 (±6.3), and 15 (±12), respectively. H-index had a significant positive correlation with faculty appointment (0.521, 95% confidence interval 0.469-0.579, p = 1.77e-41). The mean H-index was 6.7 (±8.2) for women and 8.1(±8.4) for men (p = 0.0635). Women comprised 27% of faculty positions, and men were more likely to have a higher faculty appointment than women (p = 0.0073). The top subspecialties for underrepresentation of women were surgical retina, medical retina, and oculoplastics. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty appointments are associated with research productivity, as measured by H-index. There are significant gender disparities in faculty appointments and subspecialty representation. Future directions include exploring other contributory factors to success in academic ophthalmology.

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte­associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti­programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis, and first-line standard of care (gemcitabine plus cisplatin) has remained unchanged for more than 10 years. The TOPAZ-1 trial evaluated durvalumab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer or with recurrent disease 1:1 to receive durvalumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 685 patients were randomly assigned to durvalumab (n=341) or placebo (n=344) with chemotherapy. As of data cutoff, 198 patients (58.1%) in the durvalumab group and 226 patients (65.7%) in the placebo group had died. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.021). The estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 24.9% (95% CI, 17.9 to 32.5) for durvalumab and 10.4% (95% CI, 4.7 to 18.8) for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; P=0.001). Objective response rates were 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 75.7% and 77.8% with durvalumab and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy and showed improvements versus placebo plus chemotherapy in prespecified secondary end points including progression-free survival and objective response rate. The safety profiles of the two treatment groups were similar. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03875235.)

Safety, Efficacy, and Pharmacodynamics of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Randomized Expansion of a Phase I/II Study.

PURPOSE: This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.