Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings.
Vol 23, No 16S (June 1 Supplement), 2005: 1508
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ballman, K. V. Articles by Buckner, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ballman, K. V. Articles by Buckner, J. C.

Abstract

NCCTG N047D: Relationship between phase II endpoints of 12 month overall survival and 6 month progression-free survival for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) phase II trials

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Metro CCOP, Minneapolis, MN

1508

Background: Common endpoints for GBM Phase II trials are 6 mo progression-free survival (PFS6) & 12 mo OS (OS12). OS12 can be accurately measured, but may be confounded with subsequent therapies upon progression whereas the converse is true for PFS6. Our goal was to assess the relationship between these endpoints separately for Phase II trials in newly diagnosed & recurrent GBM pts. Methods: Data were pooled from 12 NCCTG trials for newly diagnosed GBM pts (n = 1359). All pts received RT and pharmaceutical therapy (pre-, during, or post-RT). Data were pooled from 16 recurrent GBM trials (n = 345) that used various pharmaceuticals. All trials were negative by design criteria. Overall per-pt concordance was estimated with a Kappa statistic. The relationship between OS12 and PFS6 across study arms was assessed by linear regression and Pearson’s correlation. Results: 97% (95%) of the newly diagnosed (recurrent) GBM pts, respectively, are dead. The OS12/PFS6 for newly diagnosed (recurrent) pts was 0.40/0.45 (0.14/0.12). There was only moderate concordance between the endpoints both per-pt and across study arms. We established Phase II efficacy criteria for each endpoint based on the pooled estimates of OS12 (PFS6). We simulated 1000 trials using the pooled data: 89% & 73% of the simulated newly diagnosed GBM trials were negative using the OS12 & PFS6 endpoints, respectively, and 80% & 57% of the recurrent GBM trials were negative using the OS12 & PFS6 endpoints, respectively. Conclusions: For newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM Phase II trials, there was only moderate concordance between PFS6 and OS12 on a per-pt and study arm basis. Furthermore, simulation showed OS12 predicts a negative result (truth) more often than PFS6. Assuming minimal survival impact of additional therapies, these results suggest OS12 is a better endpoint for GBM Phase II clinical trials in both newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM.

View larger version (6K): [in this window] [in a new window]

Abstract presentation from the 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting