0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Joint and Landmark Modeling for Predicting Cancer Progression in Men With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer : A Secondary Post Hoc Analysis of the PREVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Can dynamic prediction models estimate individual radiographic progression risk in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer better than baseline variables alone?

          Findings

          This prognostic study using data from a phase 3 enzalutamide trial compared the predictive accuracy of joint and landmark models for radiographic progression-free survival among men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Models including baseline and longitudinal prostate-specific antigen changes generally produced smaller prediction errors and improved discriminative capability at follow-up.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that dynamic predictions using landmark or joint models improved identification of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at risk of progression.

          Abstract

          This prognostic study assessed the ability of dynamic prediction models to aid prognosis of radiographic progression risk among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Dynamic prediction models may help predict radiographic disease progression in advanced prostate cancer.

          Objective

          To assess whether dynamic prediction models aid prognosis of radiographic progression risk, using ongoing longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assessments.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This prognostic study used data from the PREVAIL study to compare dynamic models for predicting disease progression. The PREVAIL study was a phase 3, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of enzalutamide for prostate cancer conducted from September 2010 to September 2012. A total of 773 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had never received chemotherapy and had no baseline visceral disease were treated with enzalutamide. For illustration, 4 patients were selected based on PSA kinetics or PSA response in case studies. Data were analyzed from July 2018 to September 2019.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Landmark and joint models were applied to dynamically predict radiographic progression–free survival (PFS) using longitudinal PSA profile, baseline PSA, lactate dehydrogenase, and hemoglobin levels. The main outcome was radiographic PFS as predicted using landmark and joint models. Current PSA and PSA change were considered longitudinal biomarkers possibly associated with radiographic PFS. Predictive performance was evaluated using Brier score for overall prediction errors (PEs) and area under the curve (AUC) for model discriminative capability. Case studies were illustrated using dynamic prediction plots.

          Results

          A total of 763 men with metastatic CRPC treated with enzalutamide (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.5] years; mean [SD] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 28.4 [4.6]) were included in the analysis. Current PSA and PSA change were associated with radiographic PFS in all models. Adding the PSA slope, compared with the landmark models using current PSA alone, improved the prediction of 5-month prospect of radiographic progression, with relative gains of 5.7% in prediction (PE [SE], 0.132 [0.008] vs 0.140 [0.008]) and 7.7% in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.800 [0.018] vs 0.743 [0.018]) at month 10. In joint models with linear vs nonlinear PSA, prediction of 5-month risk of radiographic progression was improved when PSA trajectories were not assumed to be linear, with 8.0% relative gain in prediction (PE [SE], 0.150 [0.006] vs 0.138 [0.005]) and 19.4% relative gain in discrimination (AUC [SE], 0.653 [0.022] vs 0.780 [0.016]) at month 10. Predictions were affected by amount of marker information accumulated and prespecified assumptions. PSA changes affected progression risk more strongly at later vs earlier follow-up.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This prognostic study found that prediction of radiographic PFS was improved when longitudinal PSA information was added to baseline variables. In a population of patients with metastatic CRPC, dynamic predictions using landmark or joint models may help identify patients at risk of progression.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

          (2013)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer before Chemotherapy

            Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy. In this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P<0.001). A total of 626 patients (72%) in the enzalutamide group, as compared with 532 patients (63%) in the placebo group, were alive at the data-cutoff date (29% reduction in the risk of death; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.84; P<0.001). The benefit of enzalutamide was shown with respect to all secondary end points, including the time until the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.35), the time until the first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio, 0.72), a complete or partial soft-tissue response (59% vs. 5%), the time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (hazard ratio, 0.17), and a rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA (78% vs. 3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Fatigue and hypertension were the most common clinically relevant adverse events associated with enzalutamide treatment. Enzalutamide significantly decreased the risk of radiographic progression and death and delayed the initiation of chemotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma; PREVAIL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01212991.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Basic concepts and methods for joint models of longitudinal and survival data.

              Joint models for longitudinal and survival data are particularly relevant to many cancer clinical trials and observational studies in which longitudinal biomarkers (eg, circulating tumor cells, immune response to a vaccine, and quality-of-life measurements) may be highly associated with time to event, such as relapse-free survival or overall survival. In this article, we give an introductory overview on joint modeling and present a general discussion of a broad range of issues that arise in the design and analysis of clinical trials using joint models. To demonstrate our points throughout, we present an analysis from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E1193, as well as examine some operating characteristics of joint models through simulation studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                15 June 2021
                June 2021
                15 June 2021
                : 4
                : 6
                : e2112426
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
                [2 ]Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
                [3 ]St Thomas’ Hospitals and Sarah Cannon Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Urologic Surgery, UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Davis
                [5 ]Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
                [6 ]University of Washington, Seattle
                [7 ]Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
                [8 ]Astellas Pharma Global Development, Northbrook, Illinois
                [9 ]Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal/CRCHUM, Montréal, Canada
                [10 ]Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 9, 2021.
                Published: June 15, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12426
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2021 Finelli A et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Antonio Finelli, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Room 3-130, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada ( antonio.finelli@ 123456uhn.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Finelli had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Beer, Chowdhury, Evans, Martin, Saad, Saarela.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Beer, Chowdhury, Kim, Saad, Saarela.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Finelli, Beer, Evans, Fizazi, Higano, Kim, Martin, Saad, Saarela.
                Statistical analysis: Finelli, Chowdhury, Kim, Saarela.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Chowdhury, Fizazi, Saad.
                Supervision: Finelli, Beer, Evans, Saad.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Finelli reported receiving consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ferring, Janssen, Ipsen, Sanofi, and TerSera and grants from Medivation outside the submitted work. Dr Beer reported receiving grants from Alliance Foundation Trials, Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Endocyte, Freenome, Grail, Harpoon Therapeutics, Janssen, Medivation, Sotio, Theraclone Sciences/OncoResponse, and Zenith Epigenetics; personal fees from Arvinas, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Constellation, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medivation, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi , and Tolero; and owning stock in Salarius and Arvinas outside the submitted work. Dr Chowdhury reported receiving personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Clovis Oncology, BeiGene, and Bayer and owning stock in Curve outside the submitted work. Dr Evans reported receiving personal fees from Astellas, Sanofi, Medivation, Janssen, and Ferring International and grants from Astellas and Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr Fizazi reported receiving grants from Astellas, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Essa, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and Sanofi and personal fees from Orion and CureVac outside the submitted work. Dr Higano reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Dendreon, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Emergent, Ferring, Genentech, Hoffman-LaRoche, Medivation, Pfizer, Astellas, Aptevo, and Aragon and personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, Ferring, Genetech, Carrick Therapeutics, Hinova, Janssen, Merck, from Orion, Pfizer, Novartis, and Tolmar during the conduct of the study and owning stock in CTIBiopharma outside the submitted work. Dr Kim reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr Saad reported receiving grants and personal fees from Astellas and Janssen during the conduct of the study and from Sanofi and Bayer outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study. Dr Kim, who is an employee of Astellas, was involved in the collection, management, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review and approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The funders were also involved in critical review of the manuscript.
                Additional Contributions: Medical writing assistance was provided by Paul Littlebury, PhD, and Tom Lavelle, BSc (Hons) (Bioscript). Editorial assistance was provided by Folabomi Oladosu, PhD, and Jane Beck, MA, (Complete HealthVizion). They were compensated for their work by the study sponsors.
                Article
                zoi210369
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12426
                8207237
                34129025
                abedb97f-e5c8-4c56-ad84-f93948485f3c
                Copyright 2021 Finelli A et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 9 November 2020
                : 6 April 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article