Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Advances in Therapy 4/2021

Open Access 01-04-2021 | NSCLC | Original Research

Characterization of a Real-World Response Variable and Comparison with RECIST-Based Response Rates from Clinical Trials in Advanced NSCLC

Authors: Xinran Ma, Lawrence Bellomo, Kelly Magee, Caroline S. Bennette, Olga Tymejczyk, Meghna Samant, Melisa Tucker, Nathan Nussbaum, Bryan E. Bowser, Joshua S. Kraut, Ariel Bulua Bourla

Published in: Advances in Therapy | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Effectiveness metrics for real-word research, analogous to clinical trial ones, are needed. This study aimed to develop a real-world response (rwR) variable applicable to solid tumors and to evaluate its clinical relevance and meaningfulness.

Methods

This retrospective study used patient cohorts with advanced non-small cell lung cancer from a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Disease burden information abstracted manually was classified into response categories anchored to discrete therapy lines (per patient-line). In part 1, we quantified the feasibility and reliability of data capture, and estimated the association between rwR status and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall survival (rwOS). In part 2, we investigated the correlation between published clinical trial overall response rates (ORRs) and real-world response rates (rwRRs) from corresponding real-world patient cohorts.

Results

In part 1, 85.4% of patients (N = 3248) had  at least one radiographic assessment documented. Median abstraction time per patient-line was 15.0 min (IQR 7.8–28.1). Inter-abstractor agreement on presence/absence of at least one assessment was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96; n = 503 patient-lines abstracted in duplicate); inter-abstractor agreement on best confirmed response category was 0.82 (95% CI 0.78–0.86; n = 384 with at least one captured assessment). Confirmed responders at a 3-month landmark showed significantly lower risk of death and progression in rwOS and rwPFS analyses across all line settings. In part 2, rwRRs (from 12 rw cohorts) showed a high correlation with trial ORRs (Spearman’s ρ = 0.99).

Conclusions

We developed a rwR variable generated from clinician assessments documented in EHRs following radiographic evaluations. This variable provides clinically meaningful information and may provide a real-world measure of treatment effectiveness.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293–7.CrossRef Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.111–5 (2009), Feb 17. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.111–5 (2009), Feb 17.
3.
go back to reference Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Martin D, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating the use of nonrandomized real-world data analyses for regulatory decision making. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(4):867–77.CrossRef Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Martin D, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating the use of nonrandomized real-world data analyses for regulatory decision making. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(4):867–77.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. 2018, pp 1–19. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. 2018, pp 1–19.
5.
go back to reference Chen EY, Raghunathan V, Prasad V. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):915–21.CrossRef Chen EY, Raghunathan V, Prasad V. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):915–21.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chen EY, Haslam A, Prasad V. FDA acceptance of surrogate end points for cancer drug approval: 1992–2019. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):912.CrossRef Chen EY, Haslam A, Prasad V. FDA acceptance of surrogate end points for cancer drug approval: 1992–2019. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):912.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRef Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Griffith SD, Tucker M, Bowser B, et al. Generating real-world tumor burden endpoints from electronic health record data: comparison of RECIST, radiology-anchored, and clinician-anchored approaches for abstracting real-world progression in non-small cell lung cancer. Adv Ther. 2019;36(8):2122–36.CrossRef Griffith SD, Tucker M, Bowser B, et al. Generating real-world tumor burden endpoints from electronic health record data: comparison of RECIST, radiology-anchored, and clinician-anchored approaches for abstracting real-world progression in non-small cell lung cancer. Adv Ther. 2019;36(8):2122–36.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Griffith SD, Miksad RA, Calkins G, et al. Characterizing the feasibility and performance of real-world tumor progression end points and their association with overall survival in a large advanced non-small-cell lung cancer data set. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–13.CrossRef Griffith SD, Miksad RA, Calkins G, et al. Characterizing the feasibility and performance of real-world tumor progression end points and their association with overall survival in a large advanced non-small-cell lung cancer data set. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–13.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Reck M, RodrÍguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823–33.CrossRef Reck M, RodrÍguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823–33.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(9):829–38.CrossRef Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(9):829–38.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1497–508.CrossRef Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1497–508.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627–39.CrossRef Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627–39.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123–35.CrossRef Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123–35.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):255–65.CrossRef Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):255–65.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Mok TS, Wu Y, Ahn M, et al. Osimertinib or platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):629–40.CrossRef Mok TS, Wu Y, Ahn M, et al. Osimertinib or platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):629–40.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Westreich D, Edwards JK, Lesko CR, Stuart E, Cole SR. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(8):1010–4.CrossRef Westreich D, Edwards JK, Lesko CR, Stuart E, Cole SR. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(8):1010–4.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7.CrossRef Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Segal BD, Bennette CS. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(12):2716–7.CrossRef Segal BD, Bennette CS. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(12):2716–7.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Suzuki C, Torkzad MR, Jacobsson H, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(4):509–14.CrossRef Suzuki C, Torkzad MR, Jacobsson H, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(4):509–14.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Karmakar A, Kumtakar A, Sehgal H, Kumar S, Kalyanpur A. Interobserver variation in response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 1.1. Acad Radiol. 2019;26(4):489–501.CrossRef Karmakar A, Kumtakar A, Sehgal H, Kumar S, Kalyanpur A. Interobserver variation in response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 1.1. Acad Radiol. 2019;26(4):489–501.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ford RR, O’Neal M, Moskowitz SC, Fraunberger J. Adjudication rates between readers in blinded independent central review of oncology studies. J Clin Trials. 2016;6(5):289. Ford RR, O’Neal M, Moskowitz SC, Fraunberger J. Adjudication rates between readers in blinded independent central review of oncology studies. J Clin Trials. 2016;6(5):289.
27.
go back to reference Feinberg BA, Bharmal M, Klink AJ, Nabhan C, Phatak H. Using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors in real-world evidence cancer research. Future Oncol. 2018;14(27):2841–8.CrossRef Feinberg BA, Bharmal M, Klink AJ, Nabhan C, Phatak H. Using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors in real-world evidence cancer research. Future Oncol. 2018;14(27):2841–8.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Luke JJ, Ghate SR, Kish J, et al. Targeted agents or immuno-oncology therapies as first-line therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a real-world study. Future Oncol. 2019;15(25):2933–42.CrossRef Luke JJ, Ghate SR, Kish J, et al. Targeted agents or immuno-oncology therapies as first-line therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a real-world study. Future Oncol. 2019;15(25):2933–42.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kehl KL, Elmarakeby H, Nishino M, et al. Assessment of deep natural language processing in ascertaining oncologic outcomes from radiology reports. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(10):1421–9.CrossRef Kehl KL, Elmarakeby H, Nishino M, et al. Assessment of deep natural language processing in ascertaining oncologic outcomes from radiology reports. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(10):1421–9.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference 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 Inform. 2019;3:1–15.CrossRef 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 Inform. 2019;3:1–15.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference O’Connell JP, Kris MG, Gralla RJ, et al. Frequency and prognostic importance of pretreatment clinical characteristics in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(11):1604–14.CrossRef O’Connell JP, Kris MG, Gralla RJ, et al. Frequency and prognostic importance of pretreatment clinical characteristics in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(11):1604–14.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Sørensen JB, Badsberg JH, Hansen HH. Response to cytostatic treatment in inoperable adenocarcinoma of the lung: critical implications. Br J Cancer. 1989;60(3):389–93.CrossRef Sørensen JB, Badsberg JH, Hansen HH. Response to cytostatic treatment in inoperable adenocarcinoma of the lung: critical implications. Br J Cancer. 1989;60(3):389–93.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, et al. Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33(14):2326–32.CrossRef Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, et al. Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33(14):2326–32.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Akerley W, Crowley J, Giroux D, Gandara D. Response to chemotherapy as a predictor of survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): review of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) database. Lung Cancer. 2000;29(1):33.CrossRef Akerley W, Crowley J, Giroux D, Gandara D. Response to chemotherapy as a predictor of survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): review of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) database. Lung Cancer. 2000;29(1):33.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Blumenthal GM, Karuri SW, Zhang H, et al. Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1008.CrossRef Blumenthal GM, Karuri SW, Zhang H, et al. Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):1008.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Therasse P. Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(14):1817–23.CrossRef Therasse P. Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean? Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(14):1817–23.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Huang Bartlett C, Mardekian J, Cotter MJ, et al. Concordance of real-world versus conventional progression-free survival from a phase 3 trial of endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0227256.CrossRef Huang Bartlett C, Mardekian J, Cotter MJ, et al. Concordance of real-world versus conventional progression-free survival from a phase 3 trial of endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0227256.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Wedam S, Fashoyin-Aje L, Bloomquist E, et al. FDA approval summary: palbociclib for male patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(6):1208–12.CrossRef Wedam S, Fashoyin-Aje L, Bloomquist E, et al. FDA approval summary: palbociclib for male patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(6):1208–12.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Characterization of a Real-World Response Variable and Comparison with RECIST-Based Response Rates from Clinical Trials in Advanced NSCLC
Authors
Xinran Ma
Lawrence Bellomo
Kelly Magee
Caroline S. Bennette
Olga Tymejczyk
Meghna Samant
Melisa Tucker
Nathan Nussbaum
Bryan E. Bowser
Joshua S. Kraut
Ariel Bulua Bourla
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Keywords
NSCLC
NSCLC
Published in
Advances in Therapy / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Electronic ISSN: 1865-8652
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01659-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Advances in Therapy 4/2021 Go to the issue