nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials

verfasst von: Run-Cong Nie, Xue-Bin Zou, Shu-Qiang Yuan, Ying-Bo Chen, Shi Chen, Yong-Ming Chen, Guo-Ming Chen, Xiao-Jiang Chen, Tian-Qi Luo, Shu-Man Li, Jin-Ling Duan, Yun Wang, Yuan-Fang Li

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

We aimed to assess whether disease-free survival (DFS) could serve as a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

We systematically reviewed adjuvant randomized trials for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer after curative resection that reported a hazard ratio (HR) for DFS and OS. We assessed the correlation between treatment effect (HR) on DFS and OS, weighted by sample size or precision of hazard ratio estimate, assuming fixed and random effects, and calculated the surrogate threshold effect (STE). We also performed sensitivity analyses and a leave-one-out cross validation approach to evaluate the robustness of our findings.

Results

After screening 450 relevant articles, we identified a total of 20 qualifying trails comprising 5170 patients for quantitative analysis. We noted a strong correlation between the treatment effects for DFS and OS, with coefficient of determination of 0.82 in the random effect model, 0.82 in the fixed effect model, and 0.80 in the sample size weighting; the robustness of this finding was further verified by the leave-one-out cross-validation approach. Sensitivity analyses with restriction to phase 3 trials, large trials, trials with mature follow-up periods, and trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy strengthened the correlation (0.75 to 0.88) between DFS and OS. The STE was 0.96 for DFS.

Conclusions

Therefore, DFS could be regarded as a surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer. In future similar adjuvant trials, a hazard ratio for DFS of 0.96 or less would predict a treatment impact on OS.

Run-Cong Nie, Xue-Bin Zou, Shu-Qiang Yuan, Ying-Bo Chen are contributed equally to this study.

Yun Wang and Yuan-Fang Li are co-senior authors.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Overall survival

DFS

Disease-free survival

ASCO

American Society of Clinical Oncology

ESMO

European Society for Medical Oncology

Hazard ratio

Coefficient of determination

STE

Surrogate threshold effect

Background

Pancreatic cancer is one of the few malignant tumors with increasing incidence and mortality in both sexes [1], and it is predicted to become the third leading cause of death in the European Union in 2020 [2]. Fewer than 20% of pancreatic cancer patients present at a localized, resectable stage at their first visit, and curative resection remains the only chance of cure for these patients. Progress in surgical techniques in recent years has likely minimized postoperative complications, which is regarded as an important factor in long-term survival [3, 4]. However, in the absence of adjuvant therapy, approximately 90% of patients suffered from distant or local relapse within 5 years after curative resection, and curative resection alone only yields a 5-year overall survival (OS) of approximately 8 to 13% [5‐7]. Thus, valid adjuvant therapies are required to reduce this risk.

Several effective therapeutic strategies have been demonstrated to be effective for resectable pancreatic cancer [5‐12], among which adjuvant chemotherapy can significantly reduce the risk of relapse and improve the survival of pancreatic cancer after curative resection [5‐10]. To date, adjuvant gemcitabine and S^− 1 remains the first recommendation for non-Asian and Asian patients after resection, respectively. However, the objective response rate of single-agent chemotherapy in the metastatic stage was reported to be low, in the range of 7 to 21% [13‐15]. The landmark CONKO-001 (Charité Onkologie 001) study showed that 133 of 179 patients (74.3%) suffered from local relapse (25.3%) or distant metastasis (49.0%) after adjuvant gemcitabine treatment [16]. Therefore, clinicians are exploring whether more intensive therapeutic strategies, including combination regimens [17‐19], adjuvant chemoradiotherapy [5, 10, 20, 21] and adjuvant immunotherapies [22‐24], could enhance the therapeutic efficacy and translate to a survival benefit. For example, the PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 trial further demonstrated that modified FOLFIRINOX regimen could lead to statistically prolonged RFS and OS than gemcitabine for patients with resected pancreatic cancer [19].

The gold standard endpoint in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer is OS, which has the advantage of being simple and reliable to measure, straightforward to interpret, and clinically useful. However, this endpoint has its disadvantages: it requires many patients and lengthy follow-up duration to detect statistically significant differences. In addition, its estimates are potentially diluted by non-cancer deaths and subsequent therapies after recurrence. Therefore, reliable endpoints that could be used as surrogates for OS in pancreatic cancer could shorten the follow-up period and reduce the cost of drug development. Among them, disease-free survival (DFS) is the reasonable potential surrogate endpoint for OS in the adjuvant setting of pancreatic cancer. Several meta-analyses have revealed that DFS is validated as a surrogate for OS in lung cancer [25], gastric cancer [26] and colorectal cancer [27]. Although Petrelli et al. reported that DFS cannot represent a reliable surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer [28], the number of included trials in that study was comparatively small (12 trials); additionally, among the 12 trials, one was the adjuvant trial of periampullary adenocarcinoma (the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial) rather than pancreatic cancer [29], which would confound the results.

Therefore, with the accumulated evidence of 20 randomized controlled trials, we performed a rigid meta-analysis to evaluate whether DFS could be used as a surrogate endpoint to measure the effect of the adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Search strategy and data collection

In December 2018, we searched Medline and Embase systematically using the key words “pancreatic neoplasm”, “chemotherapy”, “radiotherapy”, and “chemoradiotherapy”, limited to “clinical trial”, “controlled clinical trial” or “randomized controlled trial”. We also search the ClinicalTrials. Gov and Cochrane Library databases, and manually searched the references of the included trials and abstracts of two conference proceedings (the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] annual meeting and the European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO] 2018 congress) to retrieve additional studies.

Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of adjuvant treatment for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer after curative resection, reporting hazard ratio (HR) for OS and DFS in full-text publication. We excluded reviews, abstracts, case reports, studies that were not published as full-text articles and studies with cohorts of less than 50 patients. For each trial, the following data were collected by two independent investigators (RCN and SQY): OS and DFS results, final publication year, trial conduct period, type of study (phase II or III), staging information, treatment arms, number of patients, primary endpoint, and median follow-up time.

Statistical analysis

This analysis is at the trial level throughout, with no individual patient-level data being incorporated. We computed the correlation between the treatment effect (HR) on DFS and OS through a linear regression model [27]. To interpret the differences between studies regarding study size and precision of HR estimates, we weighted the analysis proportionally to the study sample size or to the precision of the observed treatment effects. Hence, we applied three weighting strategies (sample size, fixed effect, and random effect) as the weighting strategies [30]. While the fixed effect meta-analysis is based on the presumption that a common treatment effect exists among every trial and uses the estimated inverse variance as weights, the random effect meta-analysis permits treatment effect discrepancy from trial to trial and merges the potential among-trial variation of effects into the weights. According to A’ Hern et al. [31], we down-weighted the sample size if trials reported more than two treatment arms.

We calculated the weighted coefficient of determination (R²) to quantify the variation explained by the surrogate endpoints, with R² value higher than 0.75 as a strong correlation, higher than 0.5 as good, higher than 0.25 as moderate, and equal to or lower than 0.25 as poor. We performed several sensitivity analyses that restricted the analyses to phase 3 trials, large trials (included patients ≥200), trials with mature follow-up periods (median follow-up ≥24 months), trials with adjuvant therapy versus observation, and trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy to verify the robustness of our findings. We also calculated the surrogate threshold effect (STE), which was defined as the minimum treatment effect on the surrogate necessary to predict an OS benefit [32]. The upper limit of the confidence interval for the estimated surrogate treatment effect should fall below the STE to predict a non-zero effect on OS. For each meta-analysis, we applied an internal validation through leave-one-out analysis to evaluate the prediction accuracy of the surrogate model [33]. Each trial was left out once, and the surrogate model was built with other trials. This model was then re-applied to the left-out trial, and a 95% prediction interval was calculated to compare the predicted and observed treatment effect on OS. We used R version 3.4.0 for all statistical analyses (http://www.r-project.org).

Results

After the systematic literature review, we identified 20 qualifying trials (5 phase 2 trials and 15 phase 3 trials) comprising 5170 patients for final analysis (Fig. 1, Table 1) [5‐10, 17‐24, 34‐39]. The median follow-up period of the included trials varied from 17.0 months to 104.4 months. The ESPAC-1 trial (European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-1) [10] was designed as a two-by-two factorial design to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy independently, with 75 patients randomly divided into the chemotherapy group, 73 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, 72 patients in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy group, and 69 patients in the observation group. Neoptolemos et al. reported the interim result of ESPAC-1 trial in 2001 [40], and updated the long-term survival outcomes after a median follow-up of 47.0 months [10]; thus, we included the latter publication in the present study. The CONKO-001 trial was also first published in 2007 [16] and was updated in 2013 [7]. Overall, the 20 trials included 23 comparisons for quantitative analysis, among which nine comparisons reported improvement in OS, and eleven comparisons reported improvement in DFS (Table 2).

Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies

Studies	Final pub year	Trial conduct period	Type of study	Stage	Treatment arms	Number of patients	Primary endpoint	Median follow-up (months)
Kalser et al. [5]	1985	1974–1982	III	R0	CRT vs. observation	43	OS	66
Lygidakis et al. [8]	2002	1993–2000	III	Stage III	CIT vs. AC vs. observation	128	OS	NR
Takada et al. [9]	2002	1986–1992	III	Stage II-III	AC vs. observation	158	OS	60.0
Neoptolemos et al. [10]^a	2004	1994–2000	III	R0/1	CRT vs. AC vs. observation	289	2-year OS rate	47.0
Kosuge et al. [34]	2006	1992–2000	III	R0	AC vs. observation	89	OS	44.8
Smeenk et al. [20]	2007	1987–1995	III	T_1-3N_0–1aM₀	CRT vs. observation	218	OS	140.4
Morak et al. [35]	2008	2000–2007	III	Stage I-III	CAI/RT vs. observation	120	OS	17.0
Yoshitomi et al. [17]	2008	2002–2005	II	R0/1	AC vs. AC	99	DFS	21.0
Ueno et al. [6]	2009	2002–2005	III	R0/1	AC vs. observation	118	OS	60.4^b
Neoptolemos et al. [36]	2010	2000–2007	III	R0/1	AC vs. AC	1088	OS	34.2^b
Van Laethem et al. [21]	2010	2004–1007	II	R0	CRT vs. AC	90	Treatment completion	33.3
Schmidt et al .[22]^c	2012	2004–2007	III	R0/1	CRT + IFN -2b vs. CRT/AC	110	OS	45.9
Oettle et al .[7]^d	2013	1998–2004	III	T_1-4N_0–1 M₀	AC vs. observation	384	DFS	136
Shimoda et al. [37]	2015	2008–2012	II	R0/1	AC vs. AC	57	DFS	NR
Uesaka et al .[38]^c	2016	2007–2010	III	Stage I-III	AC vs. AC	377	OS	82.3
Neoptolemos et al. [39]	2017	2008–2014	III	R0/1	AC vs. AC	730	OS	43.2
Sinn et al. [18]	2017	2008–2013	III	R0	AC vs. AC	436	DFS	54.0
Reni et al. [24]	2018	2006–2008	II	R0/1	CRT vs. CRT	130	Toxicity	NR
Berlin et al. [23]	2018	2010–2015	II	Stage I–II	AC vs. AC	56	DFS	55.4
Conroy et al. [19]	2018	2012–2016	III	R0/1	AC vs. AC	493	DFS	33.6

OS overall survival, DFS disease-free survival, CRT chemoradiotherapy, AC adjuvant chemotherapy, RT radiation therapy, CIT chemoimmunotherapy, CAI celiac artery infusion, NR not reported

^aThis trial was designed as a two-by-two factorial design to test two comparisons: chemoradiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy-alone group (n = 73), chemotherapy-alone group (n = 75), both chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy group (n = 72), and observation group (n = 69)

^bFollow-up for the living patients

^cThese trials were analyzed by per-protocol population

^dThe long-term outcomes of CONKO-001 trial

Table 2

Disease-free survival and overall survival estimate for the included trials

Study	Number of patients		Disease-free survival		Overall survival
Study	Experimental arm	Control arm	Hazard ratio	95% CI	Hazard ratio	95% CI
Kalser et al. [5]	21	22	0.45	0.25–0.83	0.51	0.28–0.94
Lygidakis et al. [8]
CIT vs. AC	43	45	0.63	0.42–0.96	0.61	0.40–0.93
CIT vs. observation	43	40	0.49	0.32–0.75	0.60	0.39–0.92
AC vs. observation	45	40	0.57	0.37–0.87	0.65	0.42–1.00
Takada et al. [9]	81	77	0.97^a	0.93–1.30	0.86	0.63–1.18
Neoptolemos et al .[10]^b
CRT vs. no CRT	145	144	1.27	1.01–1.60	1.28	0.99–1.66
AC vs. no AC	147	142	0.76	0.60–0.96	0.71	0.55–0.92
Kosuge et al. [34]	45	44	1.03	0.68–1.56	1.18	0.78–1.79
Smeenk et al. [20]	110	108	0.94	0.70–1.26	0.91	0.68–1.23
Morak et al. [35]	59	61	0.64	0.45–0.92	0.81	0.57–1.16
Yoshitomi et al. [17]	50	49	1.09	0.74–1.62	1.24	0.84–1.84
Ueno et al. [6]	58	60	0.60	0.40–0.89	0.77	0.51–1.14
Neoptolemos et al. [36]	537	551	0.96	0.84–1.10	0.94	0.81–1.08
Van Laethem et al. [21]	45	45	1.00	0.66–1.51	1.01	0.67–1.53
Schmidt et al. [22]^c	53	57	0.91	0.63–1.31	0.88	0.61–1.27
Oettle et al. [7]^d	179	175	0.55	0.44–0.69	0.76	0.61–0.95
Shimoda et al. [37]	29	28	0.67	0.40–1.11	0.70	0.36–1.36
Uesaka et al. [38]^c	187	190	0.60	0.47–0.76	0.57	0.44–0.72
Neoptolemos et al. [39]	364	366	0.86	0.73–1.02	0.82	0.68–0.98
Sinn et al. [18]	219	217	0.94	0.76–1.15	0.93	0.70–1.23
Reni et al. [24]	67	63	1.12	0.78–1.61	1.06	0.73–1.55
Berlin et al. [23]	30	26	0.53	0.30–0.96	0.86	0.41–1.81
Conroy et al. [19]	247	246	0.58	0.46–0.73	0.64	0.48–0.86

^aHazard ratio for 5-year disease-free survival

^bThis trial was designed as a two-by-two factorial design to test two comparisons: chemoradiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy-alone group (n = 73), chemotherapy-alone group (n = 75), both chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy group (n = 72), and observation group (n = 69)

^cThese trials were analyzed by per-protocol population

^dThe long-term outcomes of CONKO-001 trial

We first assessed the degree of association through sample size weighting strategy, and observed that the correlation between the treatment effect on DFS and OS was strong (R² = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.99) (Fig. 2). Additionally, we noted that permitting difference (random effect model) and no difference (fixed effect model) between therapy type and treatment effect on DFS and OS slightly strengthened the degree of association (fixed effect: 0.82, 0.52 to 0.99; random effect: 0.82, 0.52 to 0.99). We then calculated the STE of 0.96, indicating that a future adjuvant trial would need less than 0.96 for DFS of the upper limit of the confidence interval to predict with 95% confidence an OS benefit.

Given the potential heterogeneity of the included studies, we performed several sensitivity analyses (Table 3), and noted that restriction of the analysis to phase 3 trials would strengthen the correlation between DFS and OS (0.82 to 0.83). When we restricted the analyses to trials with adjuvant therapy versus observation, the degree of association between DFS and OS was not strong (0.68 to 0.73) (Fig. 3a). Nonetheless, we recognized that adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy rather than observation is now the standard design setting for pancreatic cancer; thus, we then restricted the analyses to trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy, and observed a very strong correlation between DFS and OS (0.89 to 0.93). Other sensitivity analyses that restricted the analyses to large trials and trials with mature follow-up periods also exhibited strong correlations between DFS and OS (0.80 to 0.87) (Fig. 3b).

Table 3

Sensitivity analysis

	R² (95% CI)	P value	STE
Total population [5‐10, 17‐24, 34‐39]			0.96
Sample size	0.80 (0.49 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Fixed effect	0.82 (0.52 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Random effect	0.82 (0.52 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Phase 3 trials [5‐10, 18‐20, 22, 34‐36, 38, 39]			0.96
Sample size	0.82 (0.48 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Fixed effect	0.82 (0.49 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Random effect	0.83 (0.50 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Trials with overall included patients ≥ 200 [7, 10, 18‐20, 36, 38, 39]			0.93
Sample size	0.85 (0.41 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Fixed effect	0.86 (0.41 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Random effect	0.87 (0.44 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Trials with median follow-up ≥ 24 months [6, 7, 9, 10, 18‐23, 34, 36, 38, 39]			0.95
Sample size	0.80 (0.43 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Fixed effect	0.81 (0.45 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Random effect	0.80 (0.43 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Trials with adjuvant therapy versus observation [5‐9, 20, 34, 35]			0.81
Sample size	0.68 (0.17 to 0.99)	0.006
Fixed effect	0.69 (0.18 to 0.99)	0.005
Random effect	0.73 (0.22 to 0.99)	0.003
Trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy [8, 17‐19, 21‐24, 36, 38, 39]			0.96
Sample size	0.90 (0.59 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Fixed effect	0.93 (0.66 to 0.99)	< 0.001
Random effect	0.89 (0.58 to 0.99)	< 0.001

R² coefficient of determination, STE surrogate threshold effect

Finally, we performed a leave-one-out cross validation approach to assess the accuracy of DFS in predicting OS. We noted that the observed HR for OS fell between the limits of the 95% prediction intervals in 22 of 23 comparisons, indicating that the treatment effect on DFS is a reliable predictor of OS (Fig. 4).

Discussion

The point at which a potential surrogate endpoint could be theoretically validated has been seriously discussed [41]. The correlation approach has been widely adopted to validate the efficiency of a surrogate endpoint in locally advanced lung cancer [25], gastric cancer [26, 42] and colorectal cancer [27]. In the present study, we included a total of 20 high quality adjuvant randomized controlled trials to evaluate the surrogacy of DFS for OS in pancreatic cancer. Our finding demonstrated that the correlation between DFS and OS was strong (0.80 to 0.82), irrespective of the applied weighting strategies. Sensitivity analyses that were restricted to phase 3 trials, large trials, trials with mature follow-up periods, and trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy also yielded strong or very strong correlations (0.80 to 0.93) between DFS and OS. Therefore, we proposed the use of DFS as the surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer.

Although the recent advance in adjuvant chemotherapy have translated into substantial survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, a large number of these treated patients still suffered from relapse or metastasis; thus, new therapeutic strategies are urgently needed. Clinicians are now evaluating the therapeutic effect of more intensive adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant targeted therapy and immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer after curative resection. It is well recognized that OS is the standard endpoint for clinical trials; however, using the endpoint of OS to perform the phase 3 trials is time consuming, thus postponing the new therapy strategies in clinical application. Therefore, we urgently need reliable surrogate endpoints for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer, among which DFS is the most reasonable surrogate endpoint, and it has been set as the primary endpoint in several phase 3 trials [7, 17‐19, 23, 37]. A previous meta-analysis reported that the correlation between DFS and OS was not strong enough to support the DFS as the reliable surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer [28]; nonetheless, they only included a total of 12 trials, among which one trial was adjuvant setting for periampullary cancer rather than pancreatic cancer [29]. Therefore, in the present meta-analysis, we applied more rigorous criteria through three weighting strategies to address this urgent issue. Our findings revealed that the degree of association between DFS and OS was strong, which was further verified through extensive sensitivity analyses and a leave-one-out analysis validation approach. We believe that the robust correlation between DFS and OS in adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer is mainly attributable to the fact that pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor and that the subsequent lines of therapy are limited if patients develop relapse or metastasis.

Given the fact that adjuvant chemotherapy has showed superior survival outcome to observation for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy including gemcitabine-based or S-1-based regimens rather than observation would be set as the control arm in adjuvant trials. Interesting, we found that the correlation between DFS and OS was not strong (0.68 to 0.73) with restriction to trials with adjuvant therapy versus observation; nonetheless, we noted a very strong correlation between DFS and OS when we restricted the analysis to trials with adjuvant therapy versus adjuvant therapy (0.89 to 0.93). Therefore, in future adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer, DFS could be served as the robust surrogate endpoint for OS.

STE is an alternative measure for surrogate endpoint validation [32]. Using a surrogate endpoint with STE closer to 1, it would be easier to predict an OS benefit. In the present meta-analysis, our finding showed that the STE was 0.96 for DFS, indicating that an adjuvant trial in pancreatic cancer producing a hazard reduction of at least 4% for disease recurrence or death could be expected to promise a statistically significant reduction in OS.

There are several limitations that should be noted. First, the data for our analysis were extracted from trial level rather than an individual patient; therefore, a potential published bias cannot be excluded. Second, the included trials spanned nearly three decades, and the ascertainment of DFS was mainly influenced by the image examination and surveillance interval, thus may have changed considerably over time and among trials. Third, long-term follow-up was not available from all trials included in our analysis. Pancreatic cancer is a relatively aggressive malignancy with severe heterogeneity; thus, the short follow-up in adjuvant trials will result in fairly wide confidence intervals of HR about the treatment effects. In the sensitivity analysis, the correlation between DFS and OS remained strong (R² = 0.75) when we included trials with median follow-up > 24 months. Third, the included trials at our analysis comprised a wide range of therapeutic strategies, which included trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy, chemoradiotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy and targeted treatment. Although we performed sensitivity analysis to eliminate the potential effect of these treatment heterogeneities, the results of our analysis should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, we strongly recommended authors of individual trials to share their data to further verify the results of our analysis through individual-patient data.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our analysis suggested that DFS could serve as a reliable surrogate endpoint for OS in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer. In future similar adjuvant trials, a hazard ratio for DFS of 0.96 or less would predict a treatment impact on OS. However, these results should be further verified by individual-patient data analysis.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ryan DP, Hong TS, Bardeesy N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1039–49.PubMedCrossRef

Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Levi F, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2014. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1650–6.CrossRefPubMed

Sinn M, Bahra M, Denecke T, et al. Perioperative treatment options in resectable pancreatic cancer - how to improve long-term survival. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;8:248–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Heestand GM, Murphy JD, Lowy AM. Approach to patients with pancreatic cancer without detectable metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1770–8.PubMedCrossRef

Kalser MH, Ellenberg SS. Pancreatic cancer. Adjuvant combined radiation and chemotherapy following curative resection. Arch Surg. 1985;120:899–903.PubMedCrossRef

Ueno H, Kosuge T, Matsuyama Y, et al. A randomised phase III trial comparing gemcitabine with surgery-only in patients with resected pancreatic cancer: Japanese study Group of Adjuvant Therapy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:908–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Oettle H, Neuhaus P, Hochhaus A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1473–81.PubMedCrossRef

Lygidakis NJ, Sgourakis G, Georgia D, et al. Regional targeting chemoimmunotherapy in patients undergoing pancreatic resection in an advanced stage of their disease: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg. 2002;236:806–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Takada T, Amano H, Yasuda H, et al. Is postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy useful for gallbladder carcinoma? A phase III multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in patients with resected pancreaticobiliary carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;95:1685–95.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H, et al. A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1200–10.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Murphy JE, Wo JY, Ryan DP, et al. Total Neoadjuvant therapy with FOLFIRINOX followed by individualized chemoradiotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:963–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Miyasaka Y, Ohtsuka T, Kimura R, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for borderline resectable pancreatic Cancer potentially improves survival and facilitates surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1528–34.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Ueno H, Ioka T, Ikeda M, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1640–8.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703.CrossRef

16.

Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:267–77.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Yoshitomi H, Togawa A, Kimura F, et al. A randomized phase II trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil/tegafur and gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2008;113:2448–56.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Sinn M, Bahra M, Liersch T, et al. CONKO-005: adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine alone in patients after r0 resection of pancreatic cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3330–7.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M, et al. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2395–406.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Smeenk HG, Van Eijck CHJ, Hop WC, et al. Long-term survival and metastatic pattern of pancreatic and periampullary cancer after adjuvant chemoradiation or observation: long-term results of EORTC trial 40891. Ann Surg. 2007;246:734–40.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Van Laethem JL, Hammel P, Mornex F, et al. Adjuvant gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after curative resection for pancreatic cancer: a randomized EORTC-40013-22012/FFCD-9203/GERCOR phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4450–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Schmidt J, Abel U, Debus J, et al. Open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III trial of adjuvant chemoradiation plus interferon Alfa-2b versus fluorouracil and folinic acid for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4077–83.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Berlin JD, Feng Y, Catalano P, et al. An intergroup randomized phase II study of Bevacizumab or Cetuximab in combination with gemcitabine and in combination with chemoradiation in patients with resected pancreatic carcinoma: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E2204). Oncology. 2018;94:39–46.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Reni M, Balzano G, Zanon S, et al. Safety and efficacy of preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PACT-15): a randomised, open-label, phase 2–3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:413–23.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mauguen A, Pignon J-P, Burdett S, et al. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients' data. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:619–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Oba K, Paoletti X, Alberts S, et al. Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1600–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

27.

Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Michiels S, Carroll K. Individual- and trial-level surrogacy in colorectal cancer. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:467–75.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Ghidini M, et al. Disease-free survival is not a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review of randomized trials. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:944–50.CrossRef

29.

Neoptolemos JP, Moore MJ, Cox TF, et al. Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;308:147–56.PubMedCrossRef

30.

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.CrossRefPubMed

31.

A'Hern RP, Ebbs SR, Baum MB. Does chemotherapy improve survival in advanced breast cancer? A statistical overview. Br J Cancer. 1988;57:615–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Burzykowski T, Buyse M. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006;5:173–86.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Julious SA, Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. Predicting where future means will lie based on the results of the current trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:352–7.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kosuge T, Kiuchi T, Mukai K, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil therapy after curative resection in cases of pancreatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36:159–65.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Morak MJ, van der Gaast A, Incrocci L, et al. Adjuvant intra-arterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus surgery alone in resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1031–41.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304:1073–81.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Shimoda M, Kubota K, Shimizu T, Katoh M. Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus gemcitabine after pancreatic cancer resection. Br J Surg. 2015;102:746–54.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Uesaka K, Boku N, Fukutomi A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01). Lancet. 2016;388:248–57.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Neoptolemos JP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P, et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1011–24.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Neoptolemos JP, Dunn JA, Stocken DD, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:1576–85.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8:431–40.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Paoletti X, Oba K, Bang YJ, et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer trials: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1667–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials
verfasst von: Run-Cong Nie
Xue-Bin Zou
Shu-Qiang Yuan
Ying-Bo Chen
Shi Chen
Yong-Ming Chen
Guo-Ming Chen
Xiao-Jiang Chen
Tian-Qi Luo
Shu-Man Li
Jin-Ling Duan
Yun Wang
Yuan-Fang Li
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2020
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06910-5

Springer Medizin

Disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant trials of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials