Aim: Time to subsequent therapy (TST) is an end point that may complement progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in determining the treatment effect of anticancer drugs and may be a potential surrogate for PFS and OS. We systematically reviewed the correlation between TST and both PFS and OS in published phase 2/3 studies in advanced solid tumors. Materials & methods: Trial-level correlational analyses were performed for TST versus PFS (by investigator and/or central review) and TST versus OS. Results: Of 21 included studies, nine (43%) used ‘time to first subsequent therapy or death’ (TFST) as the TST end point; 11 (57%) used different definitions (‘other TST end points’). There was a strong correlation between TFST and PFS by investigator (medians: R² = 0.88; hazard ratio [HR]: R² = 0.91) and TFST versus PFS by central review (medians: R² = 0.86; HRs: R² = 0.84). For TFST versus OS there was medium/poor correlation for medians (R² = 0.64) and HRs (R² = 0.02). Conclusion: TFST strongly correlates with PFS, but not with OS.

Plain language summary

In a recent study, researchers investigated how we can measure the effectiveness of cancer drugs. They focused on a specific measure called ‘time to next therapy’, which is the duration between two treatments patients receive. By analyzing the relationship between time to next therapy and disease progression, they discovered a strong correlation. This suggests that in the future, time to next therapy could potentially help to measure how well a cancer treatment works. However, when it comes to predicting patient survival, the relationship was not as strong. This implies that time to next therapy is not a reliable indicator of patient survival. To fully understand whether time to next therapy can effectively measure the effectiveness of anticancer drugs, further research is necessary.

Tweetable abstract

A systematic review showed that time to subsequent therapy correlates with progression-free survival, and therefore may be useful to measure the treatment effect of anticancer drugs in advanced solid tumors.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on the clinical evaluation of anticancer medicinal products. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-man-revision-5_en.pdf • The European Medicines Agency guideline on the clinical evaluation of anticancer medicinal products is the prevailing guideline for industry in the EU, recognizing progression-free survival (PFS) as a key endpoint to demonstrate clinical benefit. Time to subsequent therapy is currently not recognized as such.
Google Scholar
2. Kim C, Prasad V. Cancer Drugs Approved on the Basis of a Surrogate End Point and Subsequent Overall Survival: An Analysis of 5 Years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. JAMA Intern. Med. 175(12), 1992–1994 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, Poplavska E, Pinto A, Aggarwal A. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ j4530 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Davis S, Tappenden P, Cantrell A. A Review of Studies Examining the Relationship between Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Advanced or Metastatic Cancer [Internet]. NICE Decis. Support Unit Methods Dev (2012). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28481488/ • This review suggests that the level of evidence available supporting a relationship between PFS/time to progression and overall survival varies considerably by cancer type and is not always consistent even within one specific cancer type.
Google Scholar
5. Haslam A, Hey SP, Gill J, Prasad V. A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. Eur. J. Cancer 106, 196–211 (2019). • This is a large umbrella analysis of surrogate validation studies.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Matulonis UA, Oza AM, Ho TW, Ledermann JA. Intermediate clinical endpoints: a bridge between progression-free survival and overall survival in ovarian cancer trials. Cancer 121(11), 1737–1746 (2015). • This review discusses the value of intermediate endpoints such as the time to second disease progression or death and the time to second subsequent therapy or death in ovarian cancer.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Stewart M, Norden AD, Dreyer N et al. An Exploratory Analysis of Real-World End Points for Assessing Outcomes Among Immunotherapy-Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. JCO Clin. cancer informatics. 3, 1–15 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Chen C-C, Parikh K, Abouzaid S et al. Real-World Treatment Patterns, Time to Next Treatment, and Economic Outcomes in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with Pomalidomide or Carfilzomib. J. Manag. care Spec. Pharm. 23(2), 236–246 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Branchoux S, Sofeu CL, Gaudin AF et al. Time to next treatment or death as a candidate surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an insight from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial. ESMO Open. 7(1), 100340 (2022). • This study suggested that time to subsequent therapy or death may be a valuable surrogate endpoint in previously untreated advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Surrogacy analyses considering multiple randomised controlled trials are warranted for confirming these findings.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Citeline. Citeline Trialtrove. https://pharmaintelligence.informa.com/products-and-services/data-and-analysis/trialtrove
Google Scholar
11. Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J et al. Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(22), 2154–2164 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. The ASCO Post. SGO 2017: Secondary Endpoint Results of Phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA Trial of Niraparib in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer. https://ascopost.com/News/52430
Google Scholar
13. Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ et al. Osimertinib or platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-Positive lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 376(7), 629–640 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. European Public Assessment Report. Tagrisso (osimertinib) - European Medicines Agency - procedure no. EMA/CHMP/134310/2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/variation-report/tagrisso-h-c-4124-ii-0009-g-epar-assessment-report-variation_en.pdf
Google Scholar
15. Clinical Study Report. Study 19 (NCT00753545) - dated 08 September 2016 - AstraZeneca.
Google Scholar
16. González-Martín A, Pothuri B, Vergote I et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(25), 2391–2402 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Clinical Study Report. PAOLA1 study (NCT02477644) - dated 30 October 2019 - AstraZeneca.
Google Scholar
18. European Public Assessment Report. Lynparza (olaparib) - European Medicines Agency - procedure no. EMEA/H/C/003726/X/0016/G. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/variation-report/lynparza-h-c-3726-x-0016-g-epar-assessment-report-extension_en.pdf
Google Scholar
19. Ramalingam SS, Vansteenkiste J, Planchard D et al. Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Untreated, EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 382(1), 41–50 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Clinical Study Report. SOLO3 study (NCT02282020) - dated 10 June 2019 - AstraZeneca.
Google Scholar
21. Clinical Study Report. SOLO3 study (NCT02282020), Addendum 1 - dated 13 May 2020 - AstraZeneca.
Google Scholar
22. Clinical Study Report. SOLO1 study (NCT01844986) - dated 23 August 2018 - AstraZeneca.
Google Scholar
23. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-Mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(2), 113–125 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Beer TM, Armstrong AJ, Rathkopf DE et al. Enzalutamide in metastatic prostate cancer before chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 371(5), 424–433 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Aragon-Ching JB. Further analysis of PREVAIL: enzalutamide use in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Asian J. Androl. 16(6), 803–804 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Turner N, André F, Cristofanilli M et al. Treatment postprogression in women with endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who received palbociclib plus fulvestrant in PALOMA-3. Proceedings of: 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio, TX, USA, P4-22-06, 6–10 December 2016 (Abstract).
Google Scholar
27. Cristofanilli M, Turner NC, Bondarenko I et al. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phas. Lancet Oncol. 17(4), 425–439 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Shore ND, Smith MR, Tammela TLJ et al. Darolutamide delays prostate-specific antigen progression and time to next anticancer therapies in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [abstract; LBA-09]. J. Urol. 201(Suppl. 4), (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Fizazi K, Shore N, Tammela TL et al. Darolutamide in nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(13), 1235–1246 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Saad F, Fizazi K, Jinga V et al. Orteronel plus prednisone in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ELM-PC 4): a double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(3), 338–348 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Fizazi K, Ulys A, Sengeløv L et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of maintenance therapy with tasquinimod in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer responsive to or stabilized during first-line docetaxel chemotherapy. Ann. Oncol. 28(11), 2741–2746 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Sledge GW, Toi M, Neven P et al. MONARCH 2: overall survival of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 30, v856 (2019).
Google Scholar
33. Sledge GW, Toi M, Neven P et al. MONARCH 2: abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2-advanced breast cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(25), 2875–2884 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Presented at: The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer's (SITC) 2017 Annual Meeting Abstract Book. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-017-0289-3 (Abstract no. O21).
Google Scholar
35. Hodi FS, Chesney J, Pavlick AC et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(11), 1558–1568 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Attard G, Merseburger AS, Arlt W et al. Assessment of the Safety of Glucocorticoid Regimens in Combination with Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Open-label Phase 2 Study. JAMA Oncol. 5(8), 1159–1167 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA et al. Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 29(7), 1541–1547 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(18), 1738–1748 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A et al. Overall survival with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(4), 307–316 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Fizazi K, Tran NP, Fein L et al. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(5), 686–700 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Fizazi K, Tran NP, Fein L et al. Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(4), 352–360 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(1), 23–34 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(16), 1535–1546 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(14), 1345–1356 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Ledermann JA, Oza AM, Lorusso D et al. Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21(5), 710–722 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D et al. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390(10106), 1949–1961 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Guideline on ‘Endpoints used in Relative Effectiveness Assessment: Surrogate Endpoints’ (2015). https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WP7-SG3-GL-clin_endpoints_amend2015.pdf
Google Scholar
48. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology. Executive summary of rapid report A10-05 (2005). (Version 1.1).
Google Scholar
49. Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G et al. Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(26), 2495–2505 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Ray-Coquard I, Pautier P, Pignata S et al. Olaparib plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Maintenance in Ovarian Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(25), 2416–2428 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(15), 1382–1392 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Xie W, Halabi S, Tierney JF et al. A Systematic Review and Recommendation for Reporting of Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Using Meta-analyses. JNCI cancer Spectr. 3(1), kz002 (2019).
Google Scholar
53. Kovic B, Jin X, Kennedy SA et al. Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis. JAMA Intern. Med. 178(12), 1586–1596 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 23

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 79 times

History

Received 17 June 2022

Accepted 11 July 2023

Published online 17 August 2023

Published in print July 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2022-0616

Author contributions

P Agapow, LH Ottesen and D Meulendijks contributed to conceptualization of the study. P Agapow and D Meulendijks contributed to data collection and curation. P Agapow, R Mulla, N Markuzon performed data analyses. All authors contributed to interpretation of the data. All authors contributed to the writing and reviewing of the manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This work was performed at AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK. No specific funding was received to conduct the work. N Markuzon and D Meulendijks are employees and shareholders of AstraZeneca, UK. P Agapow was an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca at the time of finalizing this work, and is currently employee of GSK, UK. R Mulla was employee of AstraZeneca at the time of finalizing this work, and is currently employee of Biocore LLC, USA. LH Ottesen was an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca at the time of finalizing this work, and is currently employee of Circio AB, Norway. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download