How should a company choose the most attractive target market
Which difference should we target?
-
Upload
rogan-sharp -
Category
Documents
-
view
35 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Which difference should we target?
![Page 1: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Which difference should we target?
Alberto Sobrero
Ospedale San Martino IRCCS
Genova, Italy
![Page 2: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Which delta should we target?
• Delta for deciding GO - NO GO to phase III(signal generating trials)
• Delta of phase III
• Delta for deciding GO - NO GO to phase III(signal generating trials)
• Delta of phase III
![Page 3: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Randomized Phase II
Bendell JCO 2011Bendell JCO 2011
Median PFS 6 vs 2.5 mo HR: 0.25 (0.1-0.5)Median OS 17.7 vs 6.7 mo HR 0.37 (0.2-0.7)
![Page 4: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Overall Survival – All Patients
![Page 5: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Progression Free Survival – All Patients
![Page 6: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
• 1 Does the agent affect the natural hx of the disease ?Are we reasonably sure that the outcome would not
have occurred in the absence of the investigational agent ?
• 2 To what extent? How sure are we of the size of
the activity ?
• 3 Is this effect enough to go to Ph III ? • Rationale. why should it work in this disease ? • empirical , preclinical evidence• PK-PD. Is optimal dose and schedule defined ?
We expect too much from a Phase II
![Page 7: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
PFS on study vs PFS on prior regimenPFS on study vs PFS on prior regimen
![Page 10: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
PFS on study vs PFS on prior regimensPFS on study vs PFS on prior regimens
NONO
NONO
NONO
NONO
NONO
![Page 11: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Which delta should we target?
• Delta for deciding GO - NO GO to phase III(signal generating trials)
It is crucial that efficacy data from phase I-II whether comparative or non comparative be interpreted in the strictest way.
• Delta for deciding GO - NO GO to phase III(signal generating trials)
It is crucial that efficacy data from phase I-II whether comparative or non comparative be interpreted in the strictest way.
![Page 12: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Size of benefit (target delta) :
a compromise
1. plausible to achieve
2. worthwhile if achieved
![Page 13: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Target delta: HR
fantastic
very
good
hmm…
![Page 14: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
median HR
PFS .57
OS .73
Sobrero and Bruzzi , JCO 2009
15 pivotal R phase III registration trials, 9 biologics , 8 cancer types
median absolute gain
2.7 months
2.0 months
Very good / f
antastic
…hmm…
![Page 15: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1. HR vs absolute delta
2. target HR in trial design vs p value in trial analysis and interpretation.
3. low target HR in trial design
The 3 problems
![Page 16: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
PROBLEM 1: ABSOLUTE GAIN Increase in median OS for different
HR as a function of prognosis
MST Increase in median values as a function of HRIn control
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
6 .6 1.5 2 4 6 9
worthless worthwhile Unrealistic
24 2.6 6 10 16 24 36
Clinically worthwhile relative delta is a function of prognosis
Both HR AND absolute gain must be considered
![Page 17: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
PROBLEM 2: INCONSISTENCY
DESIGN CONDUCT ANALYSIS REPORT INTERPRET.
Define target delta…………....target delta is ignored and... p value becomes the focus…
![Page 18: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Problem 3 : INCONSISTENCY
HR 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
H1 H0
NEG
POSITIVE
POS
POS
![Page 19: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
‘Statistically positive’ trials with deltas lower than those pre-specified
in the protocol
AUTHOR DRUG TUMOR predefined reported p HR HR value
Johnstone 09 lapatinib breast 0.64 0.71 0.019Jonker 07 cetuximab colon 0.74 0.77 0.001Moore 07 erlotinib pancreas 0.75 0.82 0.038Llovet 08 sorafenib liver 0.6 0.69 0.001Escudier 07 sorafenib renal 0.67 0.72 0.02
modified from Ocana A. JNCI,2011
![Page 20: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
PROBLEM 3. ‘ LOW PROFILE’
Typical phase III trial design in advanced cancer (PFS 6 mo)
• Delta 25% i.e. HR = .75
• Median delta = 1.8 mo
• Power 90%
• N = 800
• Cost = 100 MIf w
e get this , is
this really clinically worthwhile?
Be more corageous : raise the bar
![Page 21: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
TML OS: ITT populationO
S e
stim
ate
Time (months)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
No. at riskCT 410 293 162 51 24 7 3 2
0BEV + CT 409 328 188 64 29 13 4 1
0
CT (n=410)BEV + CT (n=409)
9.8 mo 11.2 mo
Unstratifieda HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69–0.94)
p=0.0062 (log-rank test)
Stratifiedb HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71–0.97)
p=0.0211 (log-rank test)
aPrimary analysis method; bStratified by first-line CT (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based), first-line PFS (≤9 months, >9 months), time from last dose of BEV (≤42 days, >42 days), ECOG performance status at baseline (0, ≥1)
Median follow-up: CT, 9.6 months (range 0–45.5); BEV + CT, 11.1 months (range 0.3–44.0)
![Page 22: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
VELOUR Overall Survival - ITT Population
Cut-off date = February 7, 2011; Median follow-up = 22.28 months
![Page 23: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
CORRECT Overall survival
Primary endpoint met prespecified stopping criteria at interim analysis (1-sided p<0.009279 at approximately 74% of events required for final analysis)
1.00
0.50
0.25
0
0.75
200100500 150 300250 400350 450
Days from randomization
Sur
viva
l dis
trib
utio
n fu
nctio
n
Placebo N=255Regorafenib N=505
Median 6.4 mos 5.0 mos95% CI 5.9–7.3 4.4–5.8
Hazard ratio: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.64–0.94)
1-sided p-value: 0.0052
Regorafenib Placebo
![Page 24: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The different aspects of clinical benefit
1. HR
2. Median
3. % at prespecified time
4. % cure/ long term survivors
5. Clinically meaningful responses
6. Toxicity and logistical convenience
![Page 25: Which difference should we target?](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062718/56812c7f550346895d912ea9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Conclusions
1. ‘critical’ HR of around 0.75 is appropriate for most conditions
2. Primary endpoint depends on setting
3. All other parameters of efficacy and toxicity must be evaluated to correctly interpret the clinical relevance of ‘incrementalist’ delta.