Search

Yiyun Tang,1 Paul Bycott,1 Örjan Åkerborg,2 Linus Jönsson,2 Sylvie Negrier,3 Connie Chen4 1Pfizer Global Research and Development, La Jolla, CA, USA; 2OptumInsight, Stockholm, Sweden; 3Medical Oncology Department, University of Lyon, Lyon, France; 4Pfizer Global Outcomes Research, New York, NY, USA Background: The debate surrounding the acceptance of progression-free survival (PFS) as an intermediate endpoint to overall survival (OS) has grown in recent years, due to the challenges in demonstrating an OS benefit within clinical trials today. PFS is generally a good predictor of OS for cases where survival post-progression (SPP) is short, and less so when SPP is long. SPP depends on multiple factors, including residual effect from experimental treatment and effect from crossover or other subsequent therapies, posing unique challenges into the translation of PFS benefit into OS. Methods: The objective of this analysis was to conduct simulations investigating how increasing SPP impacts PFS translation to OS, utilizing data from the AXIS (axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma) trial. The underlying assumption was a treatment benefit in PFS (the PFS distribution parameters were chosen to be equal to median PFS in the AXIS trial) but no treatment effect on SPP, implying that PFS improvement is directly reflected in OS improvement. Results: The probability of a statistically significant difference between arms for OS decreased from 54.7% to 6.1% when median SPP was increased from one to 20 months. The probability of the hazard ratio of OS being ≥0.9 was similarly increased from 24.3% to 72.6%, even though the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.69. Conclusion: The present study shows that when simulated SPP is added to trial PFS data, the existing PFS benefit is diluted. Knowing that the AXIS treatment arms are well balanced with respect to post-trial treatments, we conclude that the PFS to OS benefit translation is primarily obscured by random variability largely unrelated to the true outcomes. The implications for drug development are not insignificant, as there would be a need to include more patients in studies or utilize a longer follow-up time to overcome the SPP variability issue. Keywords: overall survival, progression-free survival, endpoints, clinical trials, oncology, retrospective

PurposeAxitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, has shown activity in advanced thyroid cancer in a Phase II study. We report updated overall survival and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses from the study.MethodsPatients (N = 60) with advanced thyroid cancer of any histology for whom iodine-131 ((131)I) failed to control the disease or (131)I was not appropriate therapy were administered axitinib 5 mg twice daily. Objective response rate (primary endpoint), duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and PK/PD relationships were assessed.ResultsObjective response rate was 38 % [23 partial responses; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 26-52], and 18 (30 %) patients had stable disease lasting ≥16 weeks. Responses occurred in all histologic subtypes. With median follow-up of 34 months (95 % CI 32-37), median overall survival was 35 months (95 % CI 19-not estimable), median progression-free survival was 15 months (95 % CI 10-20), and median duration of response was 21 months (95 % CI 13-46). Most common Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events included hypertension (13 %), proteinuria (8 %), diarrhea (7 %), weight decrease (7 %), and fatigue (5 %). PK/PD analyses revealed trends toward greater tumor size reduction and response probability with higher axitinib plasma exposures.ConclusionsAxitinib appears active and well tolerated in patients with various histologic subtypes of advanced thyroid cancer, demonstrating durable responses and long overall survival. Axitinib may be useful for the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer.

There are many decision points along the product development continuum. Formal clinical milestones, such as the end of phase 1, phase 2a (proof of mechanism or proof of concept), and phase 2b provide useful decision points to critically evaluate the accumulating data. At each milestone, sound decisions begin with asking the right questions and choosing the appropriate design as wall as criteria to make go/nogo decisions. It is also important that knowledge about the new investigational product, gained either directly from completed trials or indirectly from similar products for the same disorder, be systematically incorporated into the evaluation process. In this article, we look at metrics that go beyond type I and type II error rates associated with the traditional hypothesis test approach. We draw on the analogy between diagnostic tests and hypothesis tests to highlight the need for confirmation and the value of formally updating our prior belief about a compound's effect with new data. Furthermore, we show how incorporating probability distributions that characterize current evidence about the true treatment effect could help us make decisions that specifically address the need at each clinical milestone. We illustrate the above with examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Axitinib (AG-013736) is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who had failed on previous cytokine-based treatment.Methods: Between Oct 3, 2003, and April 7, 2004, 52 patients were enrolled. All patients who had at least one measurable target lesion received axitinib orally (starting dose 5 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint was objective response (ie, percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or partial response by use of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] criteria. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, time to progression, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported health-related quality of life. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076011.Findings: In an intention-to-treat analysis, two complete and 21 partial responses were noted, for an objective response rate of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5-58.7). Median response duration was 23.0 months (20.9-not estimable; range 4.2-29.8). However, 12 of 23 initial responders progressed with response duration ranging from 4.2 months to 26.5 months. Additionally, 22 patients showed stable disease for longer than 8 weeks, including 13 patients with stable disease for 24 weeks or longer. Four patients had early disease progression. Three patients had missing response data. Median time to progression was 15.7 months (8.4-23.4, range 0.03-31.5) and median overall survival was 29.9 months (20.3-not estimable; range 2.4-35.8). Treatment-related adverse events included diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, and hoarseness. Treatment-related hypertension occurred in 30 patients and resolved with antihypertensive treatment in all but eight patients, of whom seven patients had a history of hypertension at baseline.Interpretation: Axitinib shows clinical activity in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer. Although 28 patients had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, these adverse events were generally manageable and controlled by dose modification or supportive care, or both. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Master protocol trials, such as basket trials, umbrella trials or platform trials, have the potential of increasing efficiency in modern drug development. Meanwhile, though the concept of master protocol is getting more and more accepted, many challenges exist from design to implementation of these trials. To understand current usage and challenges of master protocol trials in action, American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section (BIOP) Oncology Methods Scientific Working Group Master Protocol Sub-team conducted a survey with the goal of providing valuable information for the community to understand the current usage of master protocol, with the goal to identify the challenges., Methods: A total of 19 questions were included in an online survey that was distributed between April and May 2021. To avoid over-reporting within an organization, a pre-determined list of contacts from 37 organizations were reached out with the shared online link of the survey. Literature research and experience from the working group on challenges of master protocols are also summarized and discussed extensively., Results: A total of 39 responses were received from 37 organizations. Thirty-one (79%) respondents indicated that they had trials with master protocol(s) in planning or implementation in their organization with most applications (54%) in oncology. Self-reported challenges on trial design, regulatory engagement and trial implementations were further summarized in the report., Conclusions: The survey results were consistent with previous literatures and expectations of members from the Scientific Working Group Sub-team. Multiple stakeholders are called to work collaboratively to remove roadblocks for future usage of master protocol trials., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-21-6139/coif). The series “Challenges in Clinical Trials” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. JY served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the series. PB is an employee of Pfizer and stock is part of compensation plan. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.)

One of the main objectives in phase I oncology trials is to evaluate safety and tolerability of an experimental treatment by estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on the rate of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). To meet emerging challenges in dose-finding studies, over the past two decades, extensive research has been conducted by statistical and medical researchers to create innovative dose finding designs that perform better than the standard 3 + 3 design, which often exhibits undesirable statistical and operational properties. However, clinical implementation and practical usage of these new designs have been limited. This article begins with a review of the most recent literature and then provides some perspectives on implementing novel adaptive dose finding designs in oncology phase I trials from a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Statistical planning and logistical considerations on how to effectively execute such designs in multi-center clinical trials are discussed using two recent case studies.

Background: Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2-10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours., Results: Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal., Conclusions: Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.

Background: In a previous phase 2 trial, axitinib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced thyroid cancer. In this second phase 2 trial, the efficacy and safety of axitinib were evaluated further in this population, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and patient-reported outcomes were assessed., Methods: Patients (N = 52) with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced medullary or differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory or not amenable to iodine-131 received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory questionnaire., Results: The overall ORR was 35% (18 partial responses), and 18 patients had stable disease for ≥16 weeks. The median PFS was 16.1 months, and the median OS was 27.2 months. All-causality, grade ≥3 adverse events (>5%) were fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, decreased weight, pain in extremity, hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypocalcemia, and myalgia. Patients who had greater axitinib exposure had a longer median PFS. Quality of life was maintained during treatment with axitinib, and no significant deterioration in symptoms or interference in daily life caused by symptoms, assessed on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory subscales, were observed., Conclusions: Axitinib has activity and a manageable safety profile while maintaining quality of life, and it represents an additional treatment option for patients with advanced thyroid cancer., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%)., Conclusion: Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).

Purpose: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of axitinib plus docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: Women with MBC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive docetaxel 80 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice per day (combination arm) or placebo (placebo arm), following a lead-in phase I trial. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP)., Results: In all, 168 patients were enrolled; 112 were randomly assigned to axitinib and 56 to placebo. Median TTP was numerically longer in the combination arm than in the placebo arm (8.1 v 7.1 months), but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156). The difference in median TTP was greatest among patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (9.2 v 7.0 months; P = .043, prespecified subgroup analysis). Objective response rate was higher in the combination arm (41.1% v 23.6%; P = .011). The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (combination/placebo) included diarrhea (10.8%/0%), fatigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertension (4.5%/0%). Three patients in the combination arm experienced serious thromboembolic events (one death). Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination arm (15.3% v 7.1%); rates of other hematologic toxicities were comparable. Increased toxicity with axitinib was generally managed by dose reduction and/or growth factor support., Conclusion: The addition of axitinib to docetaxel did not improve TTP in first-line MBC treatment. Combination therapy may be more effective in patients previously exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Background: Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471146., Findings: Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9-9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9-10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786-1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 [7%] and 5 [2%] events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 [7%] and 17 [6%]), fatigue (27 [9%] and 21 [7%]), and anorexia (19 [6%] and 11 [4%])., Interpretation: The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are often treated with cytokine therapy, although the effect is modest and second-line therapy is often warranted. Relatively little is known regarding the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cytokine-refractory patients. This study examined the HRQOL of patients with metastatic RCC treated with axitinib, a new targeted therapy that affects the vessels supplying blood to the tumor., Material and Methods: Patients with metastatic RCC and progression following first-line cytokine therapy were enrolled into a single-arm, open-label multicenter phase II trial. Axitinib was administered orally twice daily until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was objective response rate, with secondary endpoints being time to progression, overall survival, safety and HRQOL. The longitudinal analyses of the HRQOL data through 144 weeks of treatment, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, are presented here., Results: Fifty-two patients completed baseline HRQOL assessments. Statistically significant baseline-post-treatment changes were observed on the role, cognitive and social functioning scales as well as on the nausea and vomiting, pain and diarrhea symptoms. All of the changes were less than one-quarter of the category, with diarrhea being the exception at less than half a category, suggesting that the changes as reported by patients were not meaningful., Discussion: Treatment of metastatic RCC with axitinib demonstrated acceptable disruption in HRQOL functioning and symptoms when compared to baseline levels. From a patient-reported perspective, treatment with axitinib appears to be well tolerated.

AG-013736 is an oral anti-angiogenesis agent with activity against a variety of receptor tyrosine kinases, including VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, c-kit, and PDGFR-beta. A phase 2 study was conducted in patients with poor prognosis AML or MDS. Twelve patients (six AML; six MDS) were treated with AG-013736 at a dose of 10mg orally daily for a median of 56 days (range, 1-248 days). Median age was 80 years (range, 58-88 years). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicities included hypertension (42%), mucositis (8%) and deep venous thrombosis (8%). No objective responses occurred; two patients with MDS had stable disease for 8.3 and 6.2 months, respectively. Bone marrow expression of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 was observed in 11% and 0% of patients, respectively. Sustained decreases in soluble VEGFR-2 plasma levels with concomitant elevation in plasma VEGF and placental growth factor levels were obtained during the course of therapy with AG-013736. AG-01736 had minimal biologic or clinical activity in this elderly patient population.