Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The frequency of assessment of progression in randomized oncology clinical trials

The frequency of assessment of progression in randomized oncology clinical trials BACKGROUNDProgression‐free survival (PFS) is one of the most common primary endpoints in oncology clinical trials,1 and is a composite of death or tumor growth after treatment. Because the measurement of PFS primarily relies on tumor assessment, it can be biased by variables such as the timing and methodology of tumor assessment. As such, the increasing use of PFS in place of other well‐established outcomes, such as overall survival, in oncology trials should rely on measurements with minimal bias and consistent protocols.Previous authors have suggested several recommendations for designing and executing clinical trials in reducing bias related to PFS outcomes measurement, including assessment bias (related to the frequency of tumor assessments) and evaluation bias (treatment arms receiving tumor assessments at different frequencies).2 The timing of tumor assessments is especially influential on PFS outcomes since progression is often detected at a follow‐up appointment rather than when actual change in progression has occurred,3 thus a longer time interval between tumor assessments can overestimate PFS.An additional consideration is whether the tumor assessment in clinical trials is representative of real‐world practice, or at least practices that are recommended for the real‐world practice. The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network has issued recommended scan frequencies for some cancers, and the frequency of scans varies by cancer type and treatment type, recommending every 2–6 months for women with breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy and every 6–12 weeks for women treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy, and as frequently as every 6–16 weeks for kidney cancer.4It is with this background that we sought to evaluate the frequency of tumor assessment scans in clinical trials of anti‐cancer interventions for solid tumors and to compare this to recommended and real‐world frequencies of tumor assessments. We further sought to assess the association between tumor assessment frequency and PFS measurements.METHODSWe sought to characterize the frequency of tumor assessments in the literature and to see if there is an association between tumor assessment frequency and either PFS or overall survival indices in oncology studies.Article inclusion and data abstractionArticles published in the three top oncology journals (Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology) between July 2017 and June 2020 were considered for inclusion. We included articles that were RCTs of patients with cancers that were unresectable or metastatic solid tumors and used an intervention that was designed to be anti‐tumor. Studies that did not report PFS hazard ratio, median PFS, or tumor assessment frequency, were pooled analyses, were dose‐optimization studies (no comparator), or the intervention was to prevent cancer were excluded. For studies that had more than two arms, we analyzed each comparison separately.We abstracted median PFS survival for each group, the PFS hazard ratio, frequency of tumor assessment scans, tumor type, intervention type, whether the tumor assessments were blinded (double blind or masked tumor assessment vs. open and unmasked tumor assessments), and information regarding the study (e.g., publication date, journal, etc.). Because a number of studies did not report a PFS hazard ratio, we calculated a risk ratio from the reported median PFS control and intervention values for all studies. Both the risk ratio and the PFS hazard ratio were used as separate outcomes. For the three studies where median PFS was not reached, we used the time the study participants were followed in place of the median PFS. Most studies assessed the tumor response at regular intervals, but for those that had varying frequencies, we used the frequency first used lasting 6 months or longer. We then categorized tumor assessment frequency by <8 weeks, 8–9 weeks, and >9 weeks.We then compared the tumor assessment frequency with guideline recommendations (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) for the frequency of tumor assessments. We also searched on Google Scholar and PubMed for studies that reported on the frequency of tumor assessment in real‐world clinical practice. For search terms, we used the cancer type (for the five most common) and “frequency of tumor assessment real world”. For this search, we did not include articles that reported frequency in clinical trials.Statistical analysisWe calculated descriptive statistics for included studies. We calculated differences in PFS and overall survival indices by tumor assessment frequency category using analysis of covariance. We ran separate models for PFS hazard ratio, PFS risk ratio, and overall survival hazard ratio. To examine the effects of blinding and tumor type on PFS outcomes, we calculated differences in PFS indices by tumor assessment frequency, stratified by whether the study was blinded or not and by the most common tumor types. We did not include one study in the model analyses because it was found to be an outlier when we checked model residuals. We checked model assumptions by using a QQ plot for normality and the residuals versus fits plot for homogeneity of variance. All data were publicly available and non‐identifiable to patients or study participants, so no institutional review board approval was required. All analyses were done using R statistical software.RESULTSWe reviewed 1484 articles. Among excluded articles, 947 were not RCTs; 171 trials did not include patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer; 54 did not include PFS outcomes; 55 used interventions that were not anti‐tumor; 40 involved non‐solid tumors; 26 were subgroup or secondary analyses; 17 were pooled analyses; 6 had interventions designed to prevent cancer (not treat), and one was a dose‐finding study. We further excluded two articles ‐ one article was retracted, and another article reported that the median PFS was not reached in either arm and did not report a hazard ratio, and therefore we had no numbers to use in the analysis. We then excluded two additional studies because they did not report a tumor assessment frequency. The remaining 163 articles were included in the data analysis. Sixteen articles had multiple arms, which resulted in 182 total comparisons.The most common cancers studied were: non‐small cell lung cancer (n = 29 studies; 18%); breast (n = 23 studies; 14%); colorectal cancer (n = 14 studies; 8%); prostate (n = 12 studies; 7%); ovarian (n = 12 studies; 7%); melanoma (n = 8 studies; 5%); and gastric (n = 7; 4%). Most studies were phase 3 (n = 90; 54%), followed by phase 2 (n = 68; 42%), phase 4 (n = 1; 1%) and phase 1 (n = 2; 1%), with three studies not indicating the phase (2%). Ninety‐seven studies (60%) did not use a blinded tumor assessment, while 66 studies (40%) did.The percentage of studies with blinded tumor assessments by tumor assessment category was as follows: 38% of studies had tumor assessments being done every 12 weeks or longer; 36% studies had tumor assessments being done every 8 weeks; and 45% of studies had tumor assessments done less than every 8 weeks (chi‐square = 0.14; p = .93).The median scan frequency for the studies was every 8 weeks (range 4–24 weeks; 41 studies with tumor assessments being done every 12 weeks or longer; 64 studies with tumor assessments being done every 8 weeks and 58 studies conducting tumor assessments less than every 8 weeks). Figure 1 shows the frequency of tumor assessments for all tumor types combined and the three most common cancers reported on in our analysis. The median PFS for the 182 intervention and control groups were 7 and 5.4 months, respectively. The median hazard ratio was 0.74.1FIGUREFrequency of tumor scans in oncology studies assessing progression free survival in all tumor types combined (overall) and the 3 most common cancer types encountered in studies published in the top 3 oncology journals July 2017 through June 2020. NSCLC, non‐small cell lung cancerWe found that less frequent tumor assessment (occurring more than 9 weeks between assessments) was associated with higher median PFS values for both the intervention group (F = 21.76; p < .0001; Table 1 and Figure 2) and the control group (F = 25.24; p < .0001). Median overall survival times were higher for studies that had tumor assessment every 10 or more weeks for both the intervention group (F = 7.91; p < .0001; Table 1 and Figure 2) and the control group (F = 9.00; p = .0002). Both PFS (F = 0.13; p = .88) and overall survival (F = 1.54; p = .22) hazard ratios for studies scanning for tumors every 10 or more weeks were numerically higher than for studies scanning for tumors more frequently, but the differences were not significant (Table 1). Model assumptions for normality and homogeneity of variance were met in these models.1TABLEMean values (and 95% confidence intervals) for progression‐free hazard ratios, median progression‐free survival for the intervention group, median progression‐free survival for the control group, and overall survival hazard ratio, by progression scan frequency for randomized, metastatic oncology studiesTumor scan frequencyp‐value*<8 weeks8–9 weeks>9 weeksProgression‐free survival risk ratio (N = 157)a0.80 (0.71 to 0.88)0.80 (0.72 to 0.87)0.84 (0.74 to 0.95).73Progression‐free survival hazard ratio (N = 176)b0.73 (0.66 to 0.80)0.74 (0.69 to 0.80)0.76 (0.67 to 0.85).88Median progression‐free survival for the intervention group (N = 176)6.12 (4.39 to 7.85)8.90 (7.45 to 10.34)14.95 (12.92 to 16.99)<.0001Median progression‐free survival for the control group (N = 176)4.47 (3.17 to 5.76)6.48 (5.39 to 7.56)11.55 (10.02 to 13.07)<.0001Overall survival hazard ratio (N = 124)0.89 (0.82 to 0.96)0.87 (0.81 to 0.93)0.97 (0.88 to 1.06)0.22Median overall survival for the intervention group (N = 124)14.57 (11.26 to 17.87)19.82 (16.76 to 22.89)26.2 (21.31 to 31.09)<.0001Median overall survival for the control group (N = 124)13.99 (10.98 to 17.00)17.22 (14.31 to 20.15)25.29 (20.95 to 29.62).0002aSimple ratio of median progression‐free survival (PFS) for control group over the median PFS for intervention group, without accounting for censoring and timing of progression.bSub analysis that included only studies that reported a PFS hazard ratio.*Analysis of variance p‐value for global differences between groups.2FIGUREBox and whisker plot of progression‐free survival (A) or overall survival (B) and progression scan frequency in randomized studies of solid‐tumor anti‐cancer therapiesWe found that PFS hazard ratios were higher in studies with unblinded assessments than studies that had blinded assessments (HR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.84 for unblinded vs. HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.73 for blinded; p = .006; data not shown), but there was no indication of interaction between scan frequency and blinded status of the study (p = .16). We did not find any differences in PFS hazard ratio tumor between categories of tumor assessment frequency in either blinded studies or (p = .62) or unblinded studies (p = .50). When looking at the association between tumor scan frequency and PFS hazard ratio in each of the three most common cancer types, there was no association (NSCLC p = .20; breast p = .61; colorectal p = .94; data not shown).In looking at the NCCN recommendations for the most common cancers (Table 2), the recommended frequency varied by tumor type and could be as infrequently as every 2–6 months for breast cancer that was treated with hormone therapy and 12 months for melanoma. Data on the frequency of tumor assessments in the real world is sparse. The real‐world frequency was more often than the frequency suggested by NCCN guidelines, but studies reporting these frequencies were conducted prior to the recent NCCN re‐evaluations of their guidelines for the most frequent cancer types.2TABLENational Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations5 and real‐world examples of frequency of tumor assessments in patients with metastatic or unresectable cancer, by cancer type and a comparison of frequency in clinical practiceCancer typeNCCN frequency recommendationsReal‐world frequencyNon‐small cell lung cancerInitial CT scan findings: solid nodules or subsolid nodules with solitary ground glass nodules6–12 monthsThe median number of imaging tests per patient in association with first‐line therapy varied by country, ranging between 3 (Brazil and Italy) and 14 (Japan)6~2 months (US)7Initial CT scan findings: subsolid nodules with (solitary part solid or multiple subsolid)3–6 monthsBreastPost‐chemotherapyCT:Every 2–4 cyclesBone scan:Every 4 cycles>4 imaging tests per year is considered “extreme use,” and is estimated to be 33% of US Medicare population8Post‐ hormoneCT:Every 2–6 monthsBone scan:Every 4–6 monthsColorectalLocoregional6–12 months~3 months9Metastatic3–6 monthsProstateBone Scan:For symptoms and as often as every 6–12 monthsMelanomaUvealLow risk: every 12 months; medium risk: every 6–12 months; high risk: every 3–6 months~2 months7CutaneousFrequency not indicated.DISCUSSIONIn our examination of tumor scan frequency in oncology studies, we found that studies that assessed progression less frequently (i.e., longer intervals between progression scans) more often occurred in tumor types and settings where PFS was longer, either due to the natural biology of the disease or the treatment. This did not translate into significantly different PFS hazard ratios between categories of tumor assessment frequency. Several authors have suggested the possibility of biased PFS outcomes due to the timing of tumor assessment,3,10 but in the studies that we included in our analysis, PFS outcomes of cases relative to controls were not differentially assessed between the tumor assessments frequency categories.We should be careful to say that our study cannot exclude the possibility that the frequency of scanning can result in varying PFS hazard ratios. In all these trials, the sponsor and investigators chose the frequency with the knowledge of the underlying biology, and some prediction of the putative efficacy (this is required for a power calculation). That knowledge may lead to the choice of PFS assessment interval. Put another way, the PFS assessment interval is not randomly selected. As such, we cannot draw a firm causal conclusion that alternative intervals would not alter the observed hazard rations; Instead, we merely observe the phenomenon, that as conducted, our study failed to find such differences.We also found that that median overall survival was longer in studies that assessed tumor frequency less often, which may be a result of less aggressive or slower growing tumors needing assessments less frequently. Because survival is a hard outcome, survival status should not be biased by treatment status like softer outcomes, such as PFS might be. One possible explanation for this is attrition bias or informative censoring from incomplete follow‐up when there are longer intervals between tumor assessments.11,12 Conversely, studies that had a longer interval between assessments may have been those with an intervention that was less impactful on survival outcomes.We were not able to find much data on the frequency of tumor assessments in the real world, and it was difficult to determine tumor assessment frequency in clinical practice compared to the frequency in clinical studies or in clinical guidelines. Future studies need to be done to better characterize tumor assessment frequency in real world practice. The frequency of scans in clinical studies was often more frequent than NCCN guidelines, but the recommended frequencies have recently been updated – suggesting less frequent tumor assessments.LimitationsThere are three limitations to our analysis. First, not all studies reported a PFS hazard ratio, which may have biased out results. As a sensitivity analysis, we also used a calculated risk ratio of median PFS for control participants and intervention participants, which resulted in similar results as results using the PFS hazard ratio. Second, our results may not be generalizable to all oncology studies since we used studies from only three oncology journals. While the number of journals was small, the journals are high‐impact journals that publish high‐quality publications on the larger oncology studies. Third, our categorization of tumor assessment frequency could not fully capture the multiple assessment frequencies used in some of the studies. In assigning a frequency category, we tried to select the frequency used for the longest duration, and the one in which progression was most likely to occur, as these were studies on metastatic tumors.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, we document the frequency of scans in a range of contemporary randomized controlled trials. We found that less frequent tumor assessment frequency was associated with longer median PFS in both intervention and control groups of clinical oncology trials, but was not associated with differences in PFS hazard ratios. This may be explained by deliberate choices made by investigators to assess progression less frequently based on lower event rates. Future research is needed to compare real world to trial assessment.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSNone.CONFLICT OF INTERESTDr. Prasad reports receiving royalties from his books, Ending Medical Reversal and Malignant; that his work is funded by the Arnold Ventures; that he has received honoraria for grand rounds/lectures from several universities, medical centers, and professional societies and payments for contributions to Medscape; Dr. Prasad hosts the podcast Plenary Session, which has Patreon backers. Dr. Haslam and Ms. Gill have no disclosures to report.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAlyson Haslam: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); methodology (equal). Jennifer Gill: Data curation (supporting); validation (supporting); writing‐review & editing (supporting). Vinay Prasad: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (lead); methodology (equal); supervision (equal); writing‐review & editing (equal).DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTThese data were derived from journal websites that are public domain.ETHICS STATEMENTAll data were publicly available and non‐identifiable to patients or study participants, so no institutional review board approval was required, nor was individual informed consent.REFERENCESChen EY, Joshi SK, Tran A, Prasad V. Estimation of study time reduction using surrogate end points rather than overall survival in oncology clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):642‐647. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8351Gutman SI, Piper M, Grant MD, Basch E, Oliansky DM, Aronson N. Progression‐Free Survival: What Does it Mean for Psychological Well‐Being or Quality of Life? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.Panageas KS, Ben‐Porat L, Dickler MN, Chapman PB, Schrag D. When you look matters: the effect of assessment schedule on progression‐free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(6):428‐432.Sohal DP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, et al. Metastatic pancreatic cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2784‐2796. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.67.1412National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines® & Clinical Resources. NCCN Guidelines®. Accessed January 12, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#siteLee DH, Isobe H, Wirtz H, et al. Health care resource use among patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: the PIvOTAL retrospective observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1‐16.Liede A, Hernandez RK, Wade SW, et al. An observational study of concomitant immunotherapies and denosumab in patients with advanced melanoma or lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;7(12):e1480301.Accordino MK, Wright JD, Vasan S, et al. Use and costs of disease monitoring in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2820‐2826.Bernier L, Balyasnikova S, Tait D, Brown G. Watch‐and‐wait as a therapeutic strategy in rectal cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep. 2018;14(2):37‐55.Sullivan DC, Schwartz LH, Zhao B. The imaging viewpoint: how imaging affects determination of progression‐free survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(10):2621‐2628. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2936Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS. Censoring in survival analysis: potential for bias. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(1):40‐40. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.92307Barrajon E, Barrajon L. Effect of right censoring bias on survival analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:201208649; 2020. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cancer Reports Wiley

The frequency of assessment of progression in randomized oncology clinical trials

Haslam, Alyson; Gill, Jennifer; Prasad, Vinay
Cancer Reports , Volume 5 (7) – Jul 1, 2022
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-frequency-of-assessment-of-progression-in-randomized-oncology-livtuuLPLW

References (25)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
eISSN
2573-8348
DOI
10.1002/cnr2.1527
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BACKGROUNDProgression‐free survival (PFS) is one of the most common primary endpoints in oncology clinical trials,1 and is a composite of death or tumor growth after treatment. Because the measurement of PFS primarily relies on tumor assessment, it can be biased by variables such as the timing and methodology of tumor assessment. As such, the increasing use of PFS in place of other well‐established outcomes, such as overall survival, in oncology trials should rely on measurements with minimal bias and consistent protocols.Previous authors have suggested several recommendations for designing and executing clinical trials in reducing bias related to PFS outcomes measurement, including assessment bias (related to the frequency of tumor assessments) and evaluation bias (treatment arms receiving tumor assessments at different frequencies).2 The timing of tumor assessments is especially influential on PFS outcomes since progression is often detected at a follow‐up appointment rather than when actual change in progression has occurred,3 thus a longer time interval between tumor assessments can overestimate PFS.An additional consideration is whether the tumor assessment in clinical trials is representative of real‐world practice, or at least practices that are recommended for the real‐world practice. The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network has issued recommended scan frequencies for some cancers, and the frequency of scans varies by cancer type and treatment type, recommending every 2–6 months for women with breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy and every 6–12 weeks for women treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy, and as frequently as every 6–16 weeks for kidney cancer.4It is with this background that we sought to evaluate the frequency of tumor assessment scans in clinical trials of anti‐cancer interventions for solid tumors and to compare this to recommended and real‐world frequencies of tumor assessments. We further sought to assess the association between tumor assessment frequency and PFS measurements.METHODSWe sought to characterize the frequency of tumor assessments in the literature and to see if there is an association between tumor assessment frequency and either PFS or overall survival indices in oncology studies.Article inclusion and data abstractionArticles published in the three top oncology journals (Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology) between July 2017 and June 2020 were considered for inclusion. We included articles that were RCTs of patients with cancers that were unresectable or metastatic solid tumors and used an intervention that was designed to be anti‐tumor. Studies that did not report PFS hazard ratio, median PFS, or tumor assessment frequency, were pooled analyses, were dose‐optimization studies (no comparator), or the intervention was to prevent cancer were excluded. For studies that had more than two arms, we analyzed each comparison separately.We abstracted median PFS survival for each group, the PFS hazard ratio, frequency of tumor assessment scans, tumor type, intervention type, whether the tumor assessments were blinded (double blind or masked tumor assessment vs. open and unmasked tumor assessments), and information regarding the study (e.g., publication date, journal, etc.). Because a number of studies did not report a PFS hazard ratio, we calculated a risk ratio from the reported median PFS control and intervention values for all studies. Both the risk ratio and the PFS hazard ratio were used as separate outcomes. For the three studies where median PFS was not reached, we used the time the study participants were followed in place of the median PFS. Most studies assessed the tumor response at regular intervals, but for those that had varying frequencies, we used the frequency first used lasting 6 months or longer. We then categorized tumor assessment frequency by <8 weeks, 8–9 weeks, and >9 weeks.We then compared the tumor assessment frequency with guideline recommendations (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) for the frequency of tumor assessments. We also searched on Google Scholar and PubMed for studies that reported on the frequency of tumor assessment in real‐world clinical practice. For search terms, we used the cancer type (for the five most common) and “frequency of tumor assessment real world”. For this search, we did not include articles that reported frequency in clinical trials.Statistical analysisWe calculated descriptive statistics for included studies. We calculated differences in PFS and overall survival indices by tumor assessment frequency category using analysis of covariance. We ran separate models for PFS hazard ratio, PFS risk ratio, and overall survival hazard ratio. To examine the effects of blinding and tumor type on PFS outcomes, we calculated differences in PFS indices by tumor assessment frequency, stratified by whether the study was blinded or not and by the most common tumor types. We did not include one study in the model analyses because it was found to be an outlier when we checked model residuals. We checked model assumptions by using a QQ plot for normality and the residuals versus fits plot for homogeneity of variance. All data were publicly available and non‐identifiable to patients or study participants, so no institutional review board approval was required. All analyses were done using R statistical software.RESULTSWe reviewed 1484 articles. Among excluded articles, 947 were not RCTs; 171 trials did not include patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer; 54 did not include PFS outcomes; 55 used interventions that were not anti‐tumor; 40 involved non‐solid tumors; 26 were subgroup or secondary analyses; 17 were pooled analyses; 6 had interventions designed to prevent cancer (not treat), and one was a dose‐finding study. We further excluded two articles ‐ one article was retracted, and another article reported that the median PFS was not reached in either arm and did not report a hazard ratio, and therefore we had no numbers to use in the analysis. We then excluded two additional studies because they did not report a tumor assessment frequency. The remaining 163 articles were included in the data analysis. Sixteen articles had multiple arms, which resulted in 182 total comparisons.The most common cancers studied were: non‐small cell lung cancer (n = 29 studies; 18%); breast (n = 23 studies; 14%); colorectal cancer (n = 14 studies; 8%); prostate (n = 12 studies; 7%); ovarian (n = 12 studies; 7%); melanoma (n = 8 studies; 5%); and gastric (n = 7; 4%). Most studies were phase 3 (n = 90; 54%), followed by phase 2 (n = 68; 42%), phase 4 (n = 1; 1%) and phase 1 (n = 2; 1%), with three studies not indicating the phase (2%). Ninety‐seven studies (60%) did not use a blinded tumor assessment, while 66 studies (40%) did.The percentage of studies with blinded tumor assessments by tumor assessment category was as follows: 38% of studies had tumor assessments being done every 12 weeks or longer; 36% studies had tumor assessments being done every 8 weeks; and 45% of studies had tumor assessments done less than every 8 weeks (chi‐square = 0.14; p = .93).The median scan frequency for the studies was every 8 weeks (range 4–24 weeks; 41 studies with tumor assessments being done every 12 weeks or longer; 64 studies with tumor assessments being done every 8 weeks and 58 studies conducting tumor assessments less than every 8 weeks). Figure 1 shows the frequency of tumor assessments for all tumor types combined and the three most common cancers reported on in our analysis. The median PFS for the 182 intervention and control groups were 7 and 5.4 months, respectively. The median hazard ratio was 0.74.1FIGUREFrequency of tumor scans in oncology studies assessing progression free survival in all tumor types combined (overall) and the 3 most common cancer types encountered in studies published in the top 3 oncology journals July 2017 through June 2020. NSCLC, non‐small cell lung cancerWe found that less frequent tumor assessment (occurring more than 9 weeks between assessments) was associated with higher median PFS values for both the intervention group (F = 21.76; p < .0001; Table 1 and Figure 2) and the control group (F = 25.24; p < .0001). Median overall survival times were higher for studies that had tumor assessment every 10 or more weeks for both the intervention group (F = 7.91; p < .0001; Table 1 and Figure 2) and the control group (F = 9.00; p = .0002). Both PFS (F = 0.13; p = .88) and overall survival (F = 1.54; p = .22) hazard ratios for studies scanning for tumors every 10 or more weeks were numerically higher than for studies scanning for tumors more frequently, but the differences were not significant (Table 1). Model assumptions for normality and homogeneity of variance were met in these models.1TABLEMean values (and 95% confidence intervals) for progression‐free hazard ratios, median progression‐free survival for the intervention group, median progression‐free survival for the control group, and overall survival hazard ratio, by progression scan frequency for randomized, metastatic oncology studiesTumor scan frequencyp‐value*<8 weeks8–9 weeks>9 weeksProgression‐free survival risk ratio (N = 157)a0.80 (0.71 to 0.88)0.80 (0.72 to 0.87)0.84 (0.74 to 0.95).73Progression‐free survival hazard ratio (N = 176)b0.73 (0.66 to 0.80)0.74 (0.69 to 0.80)0.76 (0.67 to 0.85).88Median progression‐free survival for the intervention group (N = 176)6.12 (4.39 to 7.85)8.90 (7.45 to 10.34)14.95 (12.92 to 16.99)<.0001Median progression‐free survival for the control group (N = 176)4.47 (3.17 to 5.76)6.48 (5.39 to 7.56)11.55 (10.02 to 13.07)<.0001Overall survival hazard ratio (N = 124)0.89 (0.82 to 0.96)0.87 (0.81 to 0.93)0.97 (0.88 to 1.06)0.22Median overall survival for the intervention group (N = 124)14.57 (11.26 to 17.87)19.82 (16.76 to 22.89)26.2 (21.31 to 31.09)<.0001Median overall survival for the control group (N = 124)13.99 (10.98 to 17.00)17.22 (14.31 to 20.15)25.29 (20.95 to 29.62).0002aSimple ratio of median progression‐free survival (PFS) for control group over the median PFS for intervention group, without accounting for censoring and timing of progression.bSub analysis that included only studies that reported a PFS hazard ratio.*Analysis of variance p‐value for global differences between groups.2FIGUREBox and whisker plot of progression‐free survival (A) or overall survival (B) and progression scan frequency in randomized studies of solid‐tumor anti‐cancer therapiesWe found that PFS hazard ratios were higher in studies with unblinded assessments than studies that had blinded assessments (HR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.84 for unblinded vs. HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.73 for blinded; p = .006; data not shown), but there was no indication of interaction between scan frequency and blinded status of the study (p = .16). We did not find any differences in PFS hazard ratio tumor between categories of tumor assessment frequency in either blinded studies or (p = .62) or unblinded studies (p = .50). When looking at the association between tumor scan frequency and PFS hazard ratio in each of the three most common cancer types, there was no association (NSCLC p = .20; breast p = .61; colorectal p = .94; data not shown).In looking at the NCCN recommendations for the most common cancers (Table 2), the recommended frequency varied by tumor type and could be as infrequently as every 2–6 months for breast cancer that was treated with hormone therapy and 12 months for melanoma. Data on the frequency of tumor assessments in the real world is sparse. The real‐world frequency was more often than the frequency suggested by NCCN guidelines, but studies reporting these frequencies were conducted prior to the recent NCCN re‐evaluations of their guidelines for the most frequent cancer types.2TABLENational Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations5 and real‐world examples of frequency of tumor assessments in patients with metastatic or unresectable cancer, by cancer type and a comparison of frequency in clinical practiceCancer typeNCCN frequency recommendationsReal‐world frequencyNon‐small cell lung cancerInitial CT scan findings: solid nodules or subsolid nodules with solitary ground glass nodules6–12 monthsThe median number of imaging tests per patient in association with first‐line therapy varied by country, ranging between 3 (Brazil and Italy) and 14 (Japan)6~2 months (US)7Initial CT scan findings: subsolid nodules with (solitary part solid or multiple subsolid)3–6 monthsBreastPost‐chemotherapyCT:Every 2–4 cyclesBone scan:Every 4 cycles>4 imaging tests per year is considered “extreme use,” and is estimated to be 33% of US Medicare population8Post‐ hormoneCT:Every 2–6 monthsBone scan:Every 4–6 monthsColorectalLocoregional6–12 months~3 months9Metastatic3–6 monthsProstateBone Scan:For symptoms and as often as every 6–12 monthsMelanomaUvealLow risk: every 12 months; medium risk: every 6–12 months; high risk: every 3–6 months~2 months7CutaneousFrequency not indicated.DISCUSSIONIn our examination of tumor scan frequency in oncology studies, we found that studies that assessed progression less frequently (i.e., longer intervals between progression scans) more often occurred in tumor types and settings where PFS was longer, either due to the natural biology of the disease or the treatment. This did not translate into significantly different PFS hazard ratios between categories of tumor assessment frequency. Several authors have suggested the possibility of biased PFS outcomes due to the timing of tumor assessment,3,10 but in the studies that we included in our analysis, PFS outcomes of cases relative to controls were not differentially assessed between the tumor assessments frequency categories.We should be careful to say that our study cannot exclude the possibility that the frequency of scanning can result in varying PFS hazard ratios. In all these trials, the sponsor and investigators chose the frequency with the knowledge of the underlying biology, and some prediction of the putative efficacy (this is required for a power calculation). That knowledge may lead to the choice of PFS assessment interval. Put another way, the PFS assessment interval is not randomly selected. As such, we cannot draw a firm causal conclusion that alternative intervals would not alter the observed hazard rations; Instead, we merely observe the phenomenon, that as conducted, our study failed to find such differences.We also found that that median overall survival was longer in studies that assessed tumor frequency less often, which may be a result of less aggressive or slower growing tumors needing assessments less frequently. Because survival is a hard outcome, survival status should not be biased by treatment status like softer outcomes, such as PFS might be. One possible explanation for this is attrition bias or informative censoring from incomplete follow‐up when there are longer intervals between tumor assessments.11,12 Conversely, studies that had a longer interval between assessments may have been those with an intervention that was less impactful on survival outcomes.We were not able to find much data on the frequency of tumor assessments in the real world, and it was difficult to determine tumor assessment frequency in clinical practice compared to the frequency in clinical studies or in clinical guidelines. Future studies need to be done to better characterize tumor assessment frequency in real world practice. The frequency of scans in clinical studies was often more frequent than NCCN guidelines, but the recommended frequencies have recently been updated – suggesting less frequent tumor assessments.LimitationsThere are three limitations to our analysis. First, not all studies reported a PFS hazard ratio, which may have biased out results. As a sensitivity analysis, we also used a calculated risk ratio of median PFS for control participants and intervention participants, which resulted in similar results as results using the PFS hazard ratio. Second, our results may not be generalizable to all oncology studies since we used studies from only three oncology journals. While the number of journals was small, the journals are high‐impact journals that publish high‐quality publications on the larger oncology studies. Third, our categorization of tumor assessment frequency could not fully capture the multiple assessment frequencies used in some of the studies. In assigning a frequency category, we tried to select the frequency used for the longest duration, and the one in which progression was most likely to occur, as these were studies on metastatic tumors.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, we document the frequency of scans in a range of contemporary randomized controlled trials. We found that less frequent tumor assessment frequency was associated with longer median PFS in both intervention and control groups of clinical oncology trials, but was not associated with differences in PFS hazard ratios. This may be explained by deliberate choices made by investigators to assess progression less frequently based on lower event rates. Future research is needed to compare real world to trial assessment.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSNone.CONFLICT OF INTERESTDr. Prasad reports receiving royalties from his books, Ending Medical Reversal and Malignant; that his work is funded by the Arnold Ventures; that he has received honoraria for grand rounds/lectures from several universities, medical centers, and professional societies and payments for contributions to Medscape; Dr. Prasad hosts the podcast Plenary Session, which has Patreon backers. Dr. Haslam and Ms. Gill have no disclosures to report.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAlyson Haslam: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); methodology (equal). Jennifer Gill: Data curation (supporting); validation (supporting); writing‐review & editing (supporting). Vinay Prasad: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (lead); methodology (equal); supervision (equal); writing‐review & editing (equal).DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTThese data were derived from journal websites that are public domain.ETHICS STATEMENTAll data were publicly available and non‐identifiable to patients or study participants, so no institutional review board approval was required, nor was individual informed consent.REFERENCESChen EY, Joshi SK, Tran A, Prasad V. Estimation of study time reduction using surrogate end points rather than overall survival in oncology clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):642‐647. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8351Gutman SI, Piper M, Grant MD, Basch E, Oliansky DM, Aronson N. Progression‐Free Survival: What Does it Mean for Psychological Well‐Being or Quality of Life? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.Panageas KS, Ben‐Porat L, Dickler MN, Chapman PB, Schrag D. When you look matters: the effect of assessment schedule on progression‐free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(6):428‐432.Sohal DP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, et al. Metastatic pancreatic cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2784‐2796. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.67.1412National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines® & Clinical Resources. NCCN Guidelines®. Accessed January 12, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#siteLee DH, Isobe H, Wirtz H, et al. Health care resource use among patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: the PIvOTAL retrospective observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1‐16.Liede A, Hernandez RK, Wade SW, et al. An observational study of concomitant immunotherapies and denosumab in patients with advanced melanoma or lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;7(12):e1480301.Accordino MK, Wright JD, Vasan S, et al. Use and costs of disease monitoring in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2820‐2826.Bernier L, Balyasnikova S, Tait D, Brown G. Watch‐and‐wait as a therapeutic strategy in rectal cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep. 2018;14(2):37‐55.Sullivan DC, Schwartz LH, Zhao B. The imaging viewpoint: how imaging affects determination of progression‐free survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(10):2621‐2628. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2936Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS. Censoring in survival analysis: potential for bias. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(1):40‐40. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.92307Barrajon E, Barrajon L. Effect of right censoring bias on survival analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:201208649; 2020.

Journal

Cancer Reports – Wiley

Published: Jul 1, 2022

Keywords: clinical trial; progression; tumor assessment

There are no references for this article.