Journal Article

Value of central review of RECIST v1.1 outcomes in the AGITG INTEGRATE randomised phase 2 international trial for advanced oesophago-gastric cancer

Moses, Daniel, Gebski, Val, Tsobanis, Eric, Pavlakis, Nick, Stockler, Martin R., Simes, R. John, Sjoquist, Katrin M., Goldstein, David, Hague, Wendy, Martin, Andrew, Maher, Richard

2023

Overview

Purpose Activity estimates should be accurately evaluated in phase 2 clinical trials to ensure appropriate decisions about proceeding to phase 3 trials. RECIST v1.1. progression-free survival (PFS) is a common endpoint in oncology; however, it can be influenced by assessment criteria and trial design. We assessed the value of central adjudication of investigator-assessed PFS times of participants in a double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial evaluating regorafenib versus placebo in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGITG INTEGRATE) to inform plans for central review in future trials. Methods We calculated the proportion of participants with a disagreement between the site investigator assessment and blinded independent central review and in whom central review resulted in a change, then evaluated the effect of central review on study conclusions by comparing hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS based on site review versus central review. Post-progression unblinding was assessed with similar methods. Simulation studies explored the effect of differential and non-differential measurement error on treatment effect estimation and study power. Results Disagreements between site assessments versus central review occurred in 8/147 (5.4%) participants, 5 resulting in amended date of progression (3.4%). PFS HRs (sites vs central review progression dates) were similar (0.39 vs 0.40). RECIST progression occurred in 82/86 (95%) of cases where post-progression unblinding was requested by the site investigator. Conclusions Blinded independent central review was feasible and supported the reliability of site assessments, trial results, and conclusions. Modelling showed that when treatment effects were large and outcome assessments blinded, central review was unlikely to affect conclusions.

• Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - therapeutic use / Cancer Research / Cancer therapies / Clinical trials / Double-Blind Method / endpoints / Esophageal cancer / Esophageal Neoplasms - drug therapy / Gastric cancer / hazard ratio / Hematology / Humans / Inhibitor drugs / Internal Medicine / Medical imaging / Medical research / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / neoplasms / Oncology / placebos / Progression-Free Survival / Regulatory approval / Reproducibility of Results / Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors / Stomach Neoplasms - drug therapy / Tumors