Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials

Abstract Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatme...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Howard L. Kaufman, Robert H. I. Andtbacka, Frances A. Collichio, Michael Wolf, Zhongyun Zhao, Mark Shilkrut, Igor Puzanov, Merrick Ross
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2017-09-01
Series:Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40425-017-0276-8
id doaj-f658eb457d8f4a8389737f99c16ddf40
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f658eb457d8f4a8389737f99c16ddf402020-11-25T00:46:34ZengBMJ Publishing GroupJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer2051-14262017-09-01511910.1186/s40425-017-0276-8Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trialsHoward L. Kaufman0Robert H. I. Andtbacka1Frances A. Collichio2Michael Wolf3Zhongyun Zhao4Mark Shilkrut5Igor Puzanov6Merrick Ross7Rutgers Cancer Institute of New JerseyHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of UtahThe University of North Carolina Chapel HillAmgen Inc.Amgen Inc.Amgen Inc.Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer InstituteMD Anderson Cancer CenterAbstract Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatment and lasting ≥6 months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. Methods We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). Results Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9 months (HR = 0.07; P = 0.0003), 12 months (HR = 0.05, P < 0.0001), and 18 months (HR = 0.11; P = 0.0002) that persisted after adjusting for disease stage and line of therapy. Achieving a DR was associated with a longer median TFI (HR = 0.33; P = 0.0007) and a higher TOI improvement rate (58.1% versus 30.0%; P = 0.025). Conclusions Achieving a DR was associated with clinical benefits such as improved OS and QoL and prolonged TFI, thus supporting the usefulness of DR as a meaningful immunotherapy clinical trial endpoint. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00769704 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769704 ) October 7, 2008http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40425-017-0276-8MelanomaTalimogene laherparepvecDurable response ratePatient-reported outcomes
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Howard L. Kaufman
Robert H. I. Andtbacka
Frances A. Collichio
Michael Wolf
Zhongyun Zhao
Mark Shilkrut
Igor Puzanov
Merrick Ross
spellingShingle Howard L. Kaufman
Robert H. I. Andtbacka
Frances A. Collichio
Michael Wolf
Zhongyun Zhao
Mark Shilkrut
Igor Puzanov
Merrick Ross
Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
Melanoma
Talimogene laherparepvec
Durable response rate
Patient-reported outcomes
author_facet Howard L. Kaufman
Robert H. I. Andtbacka
Frances A. Collichio
Michael Wolf
Zhongyun Zhao
Mark Shilkrut
Igor Puzanov
Merrick Ross
author_sort Howard L. Kaufman
title Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
title_short Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
title_full Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
title_fullStr Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
title_sort durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
issn 2051-1426
publishDate 2017-09-01
description Abstract Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatment and lasting ≥6 months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. Methods We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). Results Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9 months (HR = 0.07; P = 0.0003), 12 months (HR = 0.05, P < 0.0001), and 18 months (HR = 0.11; P = 0.0002) that persisted after adjusting for disease stage and line of therapy. Achieving a DR was associated with a longer median TFI (HR = 0.33; P = 0.0007) and a higher TOI improvement rate (58.1% versus 30.0%; P = 0.025). Conclusions Achieving a DR was associated with clinical benefits such as improved OS and QoL and prolonged TFI, thus supporting the usefulness of DR as a meaningful immunotherapy clinical trial endpoint. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00769704 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769704 ) October 7, 2008
topic Melanoma
Talimogene laherparepvec
Durable response rate
Patient-reported outcomes
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40425-017-0276-8
work_keys_str_mv AT howardlkaufman durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT roberthiandtbacka durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT francesacollichio durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT michaelwolf durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT zhongyunzhao durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT markshilkrut durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT igorpuzanov durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
AT merrickross durableresponserateasanendpointincancerimmunotherapyinsightsfromoncolyticvirusclinicaltrials
_version_ 1725264433535516672