Q-TWiST Analysis of Tivozanib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the TIVO-3 Study

BackgroundIn TIVO-3, tivozanib increased progression-free survival with no difference in overall survival relative to sorafenib as third- or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We applied quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease and toxicity (Q-TWiST) methods to quantify the net health benefits of tivozanib, in the presence of similar survival, when compared with sorafenib.MethodsThe mean Q-TWiST was calculated by applying utility coefficients of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.5 to the 36-month restricted mean health states of time with toxicity (TOX), TWiST, and time after progression/relapse, respectively. The relative Q-TWiST gain was defined as the mean absolute Q-TWiST difference divided by the sorafenib mean overall survival.ResultsThe mean TWiST was longer for tivozanib than for sorafenib, mean time after progression/relapse was shorter for tivozanib, with no difference in mean TOX. Mean Q-TWiST was 15.04 months and 12.78 months for tivozanib and sorafenib, respectively (P = .0493). The tivozanib relative gain was 11.2%.DiscussionTivozanib increased Q-TWiST relative to sorafenib, primarily through an increase in TWiST, which is generally considered to be the highest utility state.ConclusionQ-TWiST may be considered an alternative patient-centered measure of benefit of tivozanib in as a third- or fourth-line therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.Clinical trial informationNCT02627963     

Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a quality-adjusted survival analysis

The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer remains controversial because the potential benefits in terms of prolongation of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) must be balanced against the toxicity of treatment. Following mastectomy, 463 evaluable postmenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer were randomized to receive either chemoendocrine therapy for 1 year, or endocrine therapy alone for 1 year, or no adjuvant therapy (Ludwig Trial III). At 7-years median follow-up, OS was longer for the chemoendocrine-treated patients compared with controls (P = .04) and compared with the adjuvant endocrine therapy-alone group (P = .08). In order to balance this therapeutic advantage against the toxic effects of treatment, OS time was divided into time with toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST), and time after systemic relapse (REL). TOX and REL were weighted by coefficients of utility relative to TWiST and the results added to give a period of quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST). Benefits measured by Q-TWiST generally favored chemoendocrine therapy. For example, if TOX and REL were both given utility coefficients of 0.5 relative to 1.0 for TWiST, then by 7 years the average Q-TWiST for chemoendocrine therapy was 6.7 months longer than for no-adjuvant therapy (P = .05) and 4.1 months longer than for endocrine therapy alone (P = .20). Quality-adjusted survival analysis is recommended in assessing costs and benefits of toxic adjuvant therapy. In this example, it supports the use of chemoendocrine therapy in postmenopausal node-positive patients for a wide range of relative values assigned to periods with symptoms and toxicity.     

Quality-Adjusted Survival with Ribociclib Plus Fulvestrant Versus Placebo Plus Fulvestrant in Postmenopausal Women with HR±HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer in the MONALEESA-3 Trial

BackgroundMONALEESA-3 demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (R+F) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study estimated quality-adjusted (QA) survival outcomes for patients receiving R+F vs. placebo (P)+F in MONALEESA-3.MethodsKaplan-Meier OS was partitioned into health states: (1) toxicity (TOX)=time spent with grade 3 –4 adverse events before progression (DP); (2) progression (PROG)=time between DP and death; and (3) time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST)=time not in TOX or PROG. QA time was calculated by combining estimated mean time in each health state with treatment-group specific health-state utility values estimated using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Outcomes included QA progression-free survival (QAPFS), QAOS, and QA TWiST (Q-TWiST). Q-TWiST was calculated with health-state utility values for TOX and PROG defined relative to TWiST.ResultsMean PFS and OS were significantly greater with R+F vs. P+F (difference 0.56 and 0.19 years). Mean time in TOX and TWiST were greater with R+F; mean time in PROG was greater with P+F. QAPFS was 0.45 years (95% CI 0.27 –0.63) greater with R+F than P+F (P <.001). QAOS was numerically greater with R+F vs. P+F (0.16 years, 95% CI 0.07 –0.45, P = .0569). Q-TWiST was 0.23 years greater with R+F (95% CI 0.07 –0.45, P = .0069). In a sensitivity analysis using an estimate of disutility for PROG, the difference in QAOS was 0.23 years (95% CI 0.08 –0.41, P = .0022).ConclusionR+F in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC improves QAPFS, resulting in clinically important improvements in Q-TWiST and may improve QAOS.     

Q-TWiST analysis of lapatinib combined with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

The addition of lapatinib (Tykerb/Tyverb) to capecitabine (Xeloda) delays disease progression more effectively than capecitabine monotherapy in women with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) method was used to compare treatments. The area under survival curves was partitioned into health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse period until death or end of follow-up (REL). Average times spent in each state, weighted by utility, were derived and comparisons of Q-TWiST between groups performed with varying combinations of the utility weights. Utility weights of 0.5 for both TOX and REL, that is, counting 2 days of TOX or REL as 1 day of TWiST, resulted in a 7-week difference in quality-adjusted survival favouring combination therapy (P=0.0013). The Q-TWiST difference is clinically meaningful and was statistically significant across an entire matrix of possible utility weights. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. An analysis with utilities based on EQ-5D scores was consistent with the above findings. Combination therapy of lapatinib with capecitabine resulted in greater quality-adjusted survival than capecitabine monotherapy in trastuzumab-refractory MBC patients.     

Quality-Adjusted Survival With nab-Paclitaxel Versus Standard Paclitaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Q-TWiST Analysis

Background

In this analysis we compared quality-adjusted survival outcomes between nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and standard paclitaxel (Pac) using data from the nab-P phase III registration trial in metastatic breast cancer.

Evaluating treatment strategies in advanced Waldenstr?m macroglobulinemia: use of quality-adjusted survival analysis.

A randomized phase II multicenter clinical trial comparing the efficacy of fludarabine (FAMP) to that of the association of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (CAP) in 92 patients with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia in first relapse or with primarily resistant disease, was conducted on the behalf of the 'Groupe Coopératif Macroglobulinémie'. The main analysis of this study failed to demonstrate a clear cut benefit of FAMP in terms of overall survival (OS), although a significant benefit in terms of time to disease progression and event-free survival (EFS) was noted. In this rare disorder, where few randomized trials have been conducted, we took advantage of this trial to assess treatment differences while integrating quality of life considerations. We thus performed a quality-adjusted survival analysis, using the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) approach. Four health states differing in terms of quality of life (QoL) were defined, namely treatment-related toxicity, treatment free of toxicity, no treatment or symptoms, and relapse. The average time spent in these health states (TOX, CT, TWiST and REL, respectively) were then weighted by utility coefficients reflecting relative QoL value according to that of TWiST and summed up giving the so-called Q-TWiST. No difference was found between randomized groups in terms of mean CT. Mean TOX in the two groups were similarly close except when considering alopecia as a relevant toxic event. By contrast, mean TWiST was 5.9 months longer in the FAMP group than in the CAP group (P = 0.006). Unsurprisingly, given the absence of difference in OS but the difference in EFS in favor of the FAMP group, mean REL was increased by 6.8 months in the CAP group (P = 0.047). As a result, benefit of FAMP in terms of average Q-TWiST only relied on the value of the utility coefficient attributed to REL (U(REL)), with a significant benefit when UREL ranged from 0 to 0.28, ie in patients undergoing poor QoL after relapse, which is likely.     

Quality of life and quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) in patients receiving dose-intensive or standard dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer

Quality of life (QL) is an important consideration when comparing adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, especially if they differ substantially in toxicity. We evaluated QL and Q-TWiST among patients randomised to adjuvant dose-intensive epirubicin and cyclophosphamide administered with filgrastim and progenitor cell support (DI-EC) or standard-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy (SD-CT). We estimated the duration of chemotherapy toxicity (TOX), time without disease symptoms and toxicity (TWiST), and time following relapse (REL). Patients scored QL indicators. Mean durations for the three transition times were weighted with patient reported utilities to obtain mean Q-TWiST. Patients receiving DI-EC reported worse QL during TOX, especially treatment burden (month 3: P<0.01), but a faster recovery 3 months following chemotherapy than patients receiving SD-CT, for example, less coping effort (P<0.01). Average Q-TWiST was 1.8 months longer for patients receiving DI-EC (95% CI, -2.5 to 6.1). Q-TWiST favoured DI-EC for most values of utilities attached to TOX and REL. Despite greater initial toxicity, quality-adjusted survival was similar or better with dose-intensive treatment as compared to standard treatment. Thus, QL considerations should not be prohibitive if future intensive therapies show superior efficacy.     

A Q-TWiST analysis comparing panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Panitumumab+best supportive care (BSC) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs BSC alone in patients with chemo-refractory wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We applied the quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis to provide an integrated measure of clinical benefit, with the objective of comparing quality-adjusted survival between the two arms. As the trial design allowed patients on BSC alone to receive panitumumab after disease progression, which confounded overall survival (OS), the focus of this analysis was on PFS.

Methods:

For each treatment group, the time spent in the toxicity (grade 3 or 4 adverse events; TOX), time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse (after disease progression; REL) states were estimated by the product-limit method, and adjusted using utility weights derived from patient-reported EuroQoL 5-dimensions measures. Sensitivity analyses were performed in which utility weights (varying from 0 to 1) were applied to time in the TOX and REL health states.

Results:

There was a significant difference between groups favouring panitumumab+BSC in quality-adjusted PFS (12.3 weeks vs 5.8 weeks, respectively, P<0.0001) and quality-adjusted OS (P=0.0303).

Conclusion:

In patients with chemo-refractory wild-type KRAS mCRC, panitumumab+BSC significantly improved quality-adjusted survival compared with BSC alone.     

Quality-adjusted survival in a crossover trial of letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase III study of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer demonstrated longer time to disease progression for patients taking letrozole versus tamoxifen. This analysis compares the trade-offs between progression-free survival and toxicity. DESIGN: Quality-adjusted survival was calculated using Q-TWiST (quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity). Survival curves were partitioned into three health states: toxicity (TOX), disease progression (PROG) and periods without toxicity or disease progression (TWiST). The utility-weighted sum of the health state durations was derived and compared. RESULTS: There was not a significant difference in mean duration of serious adverse events prior to progression between the letrozole (n=453) and tamoxifen (n=454) groups (2.2 and 2 months, respectively). For TWiST, the mean duration for letrozole was 11.5 months, versus 8.5 months for tamoxifen (P <0.001). The mean duration of PROG was 11.5 months for letrozole and 12.7 months for tamoxifen (P=0.047). Using utility weights of 0.5 for TOX and PROG resulted in a 2.5-month difference in quality-adjusted survival favoring letrozole (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The longer time to disease progression with letrozole versus tamoxifen was achieved without increased time with adverse events and resulted in more quality-adjusted survival for patients on letrozole.     

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the management of previously untreated patients with advanced gastric cancer,gastroesophageal junction cancer,or esophageal adenocarcinoma

Background

The phase 3 CheckMate 649 established superior overall survival of nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (NIVO + chemo) compared with chemotherapy (chemo) alone as a first-line treatment for patients with Her2-negative advanced gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC). This post hoc trial analysis aimed to evaluate the benefit of NIVO + chemo using quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) to further account for quality of life (QoL) in different health states depending on disease progression and treatment toxicity.

Methods

Using data from CheckMate 649, we evaluated the quality-adjusted survival gain associated with NIVO + chemo compared with chemo alone among all randomized patients and repeated similar analyses among those with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Relative Q-TWiST gains of ≥ 10% were predefined as clinically important.

Results

In all randomized patients, those receiving NIVO + chemo had a mean Q-TWiST gain of 1.8 (95% CI 0.9, 2.7) months compared with those receiving chemo alone. The relative Q-TWiST gain was estimated to be 12.8%. Patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 had greater quality-adjusted survival gain from NIVO + chemo with an estimated Q-TWiST gain of 2.8 (95% CI 1.5, 4.1) months, representing a relative gain of 20.6%. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses with various QoL utility values yielded consistent findings in favor of NIVO + chemo compared with chemo alone. Q-TWiST gain from NIVO + chemo increased with longer duration of follow-up.

Conclusions

NIVO + chemo was associated with a statistically significant and clinically important gain in quality-adjusted survival compared with chemo alone among previously untreated patients with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC.

     

Quality-adjusted survival after treatment for acute myeloid leukemia in childhood: A Q-TWiST analysis of the Pediatric Oncology Group Study 8821.

PURPOSE: To describe quality-of-life considerations in post-remission therapies for children with acute myelogenous leukemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A quality-adjusted survival analysis, using the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) method, was applied to Pediatric Oncology Group Trial 8821, which compared randomized assignment with intensive consolidation chemotherapy (CC) or autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT). Nonrandomized assignment to allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo BMT) on the basis of availability of a matched related donor was also evaluated. A 25-patient cohort provided data for modeling chronic graft-versus-host disease. The Q-TWiST analysis was performed based on the intent-to-treat principle. RESULTS: As previously reported, the 3-year event-free survival was not significantly different between the randomized arms (CC v ABMT). At a median follow-up of 5 years (of the censoring distribution), the CC group had less time in toxicity (TOX) and more time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST), relapse-free time, and alive time than patients assigned to ABMT (none of these were statistically significant). Compared with the CC group, allo BMT patients spent more time in TOX (P <.001), more time in TWiST (P =.06), and had more relapse-free time (P =.03) and time alive (P =.07). Allo BMT was superior to ABMT with greater time in TWiST (P =.02), relapse-free time (P =.01), and time alive P =.002). CONCLUSION: The Q-TWiST analysis is a powerful decision aid in choosing among alternative therapies. Prospective information on patient preferences will facilitate future trials evaluating treatment outcomes. Refinements in the Q-TWiST method could be included to further enhance the power of this patient care decision-making tool.     

Q-TWiST analysis of patients with metastatic castrate naive prostate cancer treated by androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel in the randomised phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial

BackgroundEarly chemotherapy has recently become a new standard of care for patients with metastatic castrate-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC). The survival benefit is evident in patients with high-volume disease, but less clear in those with low-volume disease. Here, we assessed the trade-offs between toxicity and survival using a Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis.Patients and MethodsThis analysis was performed from the data of the Genito-Urinary Oncology Group (GETUG)-AFU 15 phase III trial evaluating the benefits of docetaxel (D) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in 385 mCNPC patients. Overall survival was partitioned into three periods, namely toxic phase of treatment (TOX), time before progression without toxicity (TWIST), and progression (PROG). These health states were weighted according to patients' utility to determine quality-adjusted survival times. In threshold analyses, utility for TOX and PROG were varied from 0 to 1.ResultsA better quality-adjusted survival was found in the ADT + D arm when the utility for PROG and TOX states were ≤0.2 and ≥ 0.8, respectively. When the utility for PROG was 0.4 or more, ADT + D and ADT alone yielded similar quality-adjusted survival. When patients were stratified into high-volume versus low-volume disease, we found a significant Q-TWiST benefit in favour of the ADT + D arm only for high-volume patients when the utility for PROG was less than 0.35, while we found no benefit in low-volume disease patients, whatever the coefficients tested.ConclusionEarly docetaxel may provide significant quality-adjusted survival benefits for patients with mCNPC, especially those with high-volume disease, depending on the values assigned to the times spent in the toxicity phase and after PROG. The Q-TWiST methodology is a useful tool for decision-making regarding trade-offs between survival, PROG and toxicity.     

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

IntroductionNivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort.MethodsPatients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review.ResultsOverall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively.ConclusionsWhereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.     

Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC

BackgroundRECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points.Patients and methodsPatients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored.ResultsAt final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1–26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0–29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)_{EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE}, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9–1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6–33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8–33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HR_{EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE}, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9–1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences.ConclusionsResults of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals.Clinical Trials numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175     

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

BackgroundLong-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years’ follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses.ResultsAfter 40.3 months’ minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%).ConclusionsAfter 3 years’ minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated.Clinical trial registrationCheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867.     

Safety,Efficacy, and Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptom Burden with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer,Including Patients Aged 70 Years or Older or with Poor Performance Status (CheckMate 153)

IntroductionCheckMate 153 (NCT02066636) is a phase 3B/4 study assessing nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. Eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with poor prognostic features of advanced age or diminished Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), which are typically underrepresented in or excluded from randomized controlled trials.MethodsPatients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an ECOG PS of 0 to 2 with disease progression after at least one systemic therapy received nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 to 5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).ResultsAmong 1426 treated patients, 556 (39%) were aged 70 years or older and 128 (9%) had an ECOG PS of 2. The median treatment duration was 3.2 months. Across subgroups and the overall population, the incidences of select grade 3 to 5 TRAEs (6%–9%) and grade 3 or 4 TRAEs (12%–14%) were similar. One grade 5 TRAE was documented. The median overall survival time was comparable in the overall population (9.1 months) and patients aged 70 years or older (10.3 months) but shorter in patients with an ECOG PS of 2 (4.0 months). Patient-reported outcomes generally improved.ConclusionsData from this large predominantly community-based study, which included patients aged 70 years or older and with an ECOG PS of 2, are consistent with registrational studies. As expected, the median overall survival for patients with an ECOG PS of 2 was lower than for the overall population but comparable with historical data.     

Quantifying trade-offs: quality of life and quality-adjusted survival in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer

We evaluated quality of life (QL) and quality-adjusted survival in International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial IX, a randomised trial including 1669 eligible patients receiving tamoxifen for 5 years or three prior cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) followed by 57 months tamoxifen. During the time with CMF toxicity (Tox), without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST), and following relapse (Rel), patients scored their QL indicators and a utility indicator for subjective health estimation between 'perfect' and 'worst' health. Scores were averaged within Tox, TWiST and Rel and transformed to utilities. Mean durations for the three transition times were weighted with utilities to obtain mean quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST). Patients receiving CMF reported significantly worse scores for most QL domains at month 3, but less hot flushes. After completing chemotherapy, there were no differences by treatment groups. Benefits evaluated by Q-TWiST favoured the additional chemotherapy. CMF provided 3 more months of Q-TWiST for patients with ER-negative tumours, but CMF provided no benefit in Q-TWiST for patients with ER-positive tumours. Q-TWiST analysis based on patient ratings is feasible in large-scale cross-cultural clinical trials.     

Q-TWiST analysis to estimate overall benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-α

Background:

In a randomised phase III trial of treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with interferon (IFN)-α. We assessed between-treatment differences in overall benefit using a quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (TWiST; Gelber and Goldhirsch) analysis.

Methods:

In this analysis, in which only grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were included, overall survival was partitioned into three health states: toxicity (time with toxicity after randomisation and before progression), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and time from progression until death. Between-treatment differences in the mean duration of each state were calculated. A threshold utility analysis was used to assess quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) outcomes.

Results:

Q-TWiST scores showed that quality-adjusted survival time was greater with sunitinib than with IFN-α, even though certain grade 3/4 toxicities occurred more frequently with sunitinib. For both treatments, the mean number of days with toxicity was small compared with PFS. This effect was more pronounced with sunitinib in which time spent without progression or toxicity was 151 days greater than with IFN-α.

Conclusion:

Patients randomised to sunitinib had longer clinical benefit, defined as Q-TWiST scores, than patients randomised to IFN-α.     

Phase II trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RECORD-4)

BackgroundRECORD-1 demonstrated clinical benefit of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, or both; prior treatment with cytokines, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy was also permitted. RECORD-4 prospectively assessed everolimus in a purely second-line setting.MethodsPatients with clear-cell mRCC were enrolled into one of three cohorts based on first-line therapy with sunitinib, other anti-VEGF agents, or cytokines. Patients were treated with everolimus 10 mg/day until progression (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator review. Data cutoff was 1 September 2014, for the primary analysis and 26 June 2015, for the final overall survival (OS) analysis.ResultsEnrolled patients (N = 134) previously received sunitinib (n = 58), other anti-VEGF therapy (n = 62; sorafenib, 23; bevacizumab, 16; pazopanib, 13; tivozanib, 5; and axitinib, 3), or cytokines (n = 14). Overall median age was 59 years, and most patients were men (68%) and of favorable/intermediate MSKCC risk (52/37%). Overall median PFS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7–11.0]; in the cohorts, it was 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7–11.3) with previous sunitinib, 7.8 months (95% CI 5.7–11.0) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and 12.9 months [95% CI 2.6–not estimable (NE)] with previous cytokines. Overall, 67% of patients achieved stable disease as their best objective response. At final OS analysis, total median OS was 23.8 months (95% CI 17.0–NE) and, in the cohorts, it was 23.8 months (95% CI 13.7–NE) with previous sunitinib, 17.2 months (95% CI 11.9–NE) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and NE (95% CI 15.9–NE) with previous cytokine-based therapy. Overall, 56% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (regardless of relationship to study drug).ConclusionsThese results confirm the PFS benefit of second-line everolimus after first-line sunitinib or other anti-VEGF therapies. The safety profile of everolimus was consistent with previous experience.Clinical trial name and identifierEverolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RECORD-4), ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01491672.