Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis.

Importance The impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) cancer treatment strategy in the setting of phase 1 clinical trials was analyzed. Objective To compare patient outcomes in phase 1 studies that used a biomarker selection strategy with those that did not. Data Sources PubMed search of phase 1 cancer drug trials (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013). Study Selection Studies included trials that evaluated single agents, and reported efficacy end points (at least response rate [RR]). Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators. Main Outcomes and Measures Response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy (biomarker selection) vs those that did not. Overall survival was not analyzed owing to insufficient data. Results A total of 346 studies published in the designated 3-year time period were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis (meta-regression and weighted multiple regression models) demonstrated that the personalized approach independently correlated with a significantly higher median RR (30.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-36.9%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-5.7%]; P < .001) and a longer median PFS (5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-13.8] vs 2.95 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] months; P < .001). Targeted therapy arms that used a biomarker-based selection strategy (n = 57 trials) were associated with statistically improved RR compared with targeted therapy arms (n = 177 arms) that did not (31.1% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%]; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had outcomes comparable with those that tested a cytotoxic agent (median RR, 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-6.2%]; P = .63; respectively; median PFS, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.0] months vs 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0-3.7] months; P = .22). Personalized arms using a "genomic (DNA) biomarker" had higher median RR than those using a "protein biomarker" (42.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-50.9%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%]; P = .001). The median treatment-related mortality was not statistically different for arms that used a personalized strategy vs not (1.89% [95% CI, 1.36%-2.61%] vs 2.27% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.62%]; P = .31). Conclusions and Relevance In this meta-analysis, most phase 1 trials of targeted agents did not use a biomarker-based selection strategy. However, use of a biomarker-based approach was associated with significantly improved outcomes (RR and PFS). Response rates were significantly higher with genomic vs protein biomarkers. Studies that used targeted agents without a biomarker had negligible response rates.

[1]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Personalized Medicine in a Phase I Clinical Trials Program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Initiative , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  A generalized weighting regression‐derived meta‐analysis estimator robust to small‐study effects and heterogeneity , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  K. Wong,et al.  The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Stefan Michiels,et al.  Meta-analysis when only the median survival times are known: A comparison with individual patient data results , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  K. Arnaoutakis.  Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  D. Berry,et al.  Outcomes of Phase II Clinical Trials with Single-Agent Therapies in Advanced/Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Published between 2000 and 2009 , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  E. Felip,et al.  Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[8]  Nicolas Servant,et al.  Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[9]  T. Eberlein,et al.  Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation , 2012 .

[10]  P. Hwu,et al.  Melanoma patients in a phase I clinic: molecular aberrations, targeted therapy and outcomes. , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[11]  Hristos Doucouliagos,et al.  Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta‐analysis , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  A. Chen,et al.  An overview of the NCI precision medicine trials-NCI MATCH and MPACT. , 2015, Chinese clinical oncology.

[13]  Caroline McNeil,et al.  NCI-MATCH launch highlights new trial design in precision-medicine era. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  R. Plummer,et al.  Dose–Response Relationship in Phase I Clinical Trials: A European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  Michael Bittner,et al.  Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients' tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Qi Liu,et al.  Next generation sequencing in cancer research and clinical application , 2013, Biological Procedures Online.

[17]  R. Yelensky,et al.  Prospective study comparing outcomes in patients with advanced malignancies on molecular alteration-matched versus non-matched therapy. , 2015 .

[18]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Personalized Medicine for Patients with Advanced Cancer in the Phase I Program at MD Anderson: Validation and Landmark Analyses , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  Edward S. Kim,et al.  The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. , 2011, Cancer discovery.

[20]  Raghu Kacker,et al.  Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[21]  Heikki Joensuu,et al.  Phase II, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Activity of Imatinib in Treating Life-Threatening Malignancies Known to Be Associated with Imatinib-Sensitive Tyrosine Kinases , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[22]  William Pao,et al.  Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. , 2014, JAMA.

[23]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Phase I Oncology Studies: Evidence That in the Era of Targeted Therapies Patients on Lower Doses Do Not Fare Worse , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[24]  R. Schilsky,et al.  Impact of a Biomarker-Based Strategy on Oncology Drug Development: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approval. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  Asher Mullard,et al.  NCI-MATCH trial pushes cancer umbrella trial paradigm , 2015, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  J Jack Lee,et al.  Impact of Precision Medicine in Diverse Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Phase II Clinical Trials. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Winnie S. Liang,et al.  A Pilot Study Using Next-Generation Sequencing in Advanced Cancers: Feasibility and Challenges , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  A. Hahn,et al.  Precision medicine: lessons learned from the SHIVA trial. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[29]  J. Doroshow,et al.  Molecular analysis for therapy choice: NCI MATCH. , 2014, Seminars in oncology.

[30]  P. Workman,et al.  Biomarker-Driven Early Clinical Trials in Oncology: A Paradigm Shift in Drug Development , 2009, Cancer journal.

[31]  F. Cappuzzo,et al.  First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  L. Rubinstein,et al.  Meta-analysis of the relationship between dose and benefit in phase I targeted agent trials. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[33]  Vicki Brower,et al.  NCI-MATCH pairs tumor mutations with matching drugs , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.