|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abstract
Highlights
- •
- Ovarian cancer has unique considerations for clinical trial endpoint selection
- •
- Optimal endpoint selection should reflect true patient benefit
- •
- PFS as a surrogate has significant advantages and disadvantages in ovarian cancer
Clinical
trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial
design, results interpretation, drug development, and regulatory
approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial
endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long
overall survival (OS) is observed even for those who present with
advanced disease stages. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the
lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer
therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the
numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique
context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression
therapies potentially uncouple the surrogacy between progression-free
survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized
endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health
related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely
supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of
ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be
asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of
ovarian cancer advocates is presented.
Endpoint
selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on
disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while
reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory
approvals and are clinically important. However, current regulatory
approval guidance by the FDA indicates that surrogates for overall
survival, while acceptable, must be clinically meaningful. OS remains
the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable
to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised
by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final
analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from
active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS
improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with
regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be
undertaken.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.