Abstract
Background
The association between progression type and survival has been reported in breast cancer, but remains unclear in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Here, this association was assessed using data obtained from an earlier randomized phase III study demonstrating the non-inferiority of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) to S-1 plus cisplatin (CS) on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) in the first-line treatment of AGC.
Methods
A Cox regression model including two time-dependent covariates, progression with new lesions and with no new lesions, was used to determine their effect on OS in each treatment group. When both types of progression were detected simultaneously, this was categorized as progression with new lesions.
Results
Progression with and with no new lesions was identified in 91 and 167 patients, respectively, in the SOX group (333 patients) and 95 and 147 patients, respectively, in the CS group (330 patients). The association between progression type and OS was similar in both treatment groups; both progression types were strong poor prognostic factors, particularly progression with new lesions [hazard ratio (HR), 7.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.89–10.80 in SOX and HR, 5.78; 95% CI, 4.13–8.08 in CS] compared to no new lesions (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 3.21–6.77 in SOX and HR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.95–3.75 in CS).
Conclusions
Progression accompanied by new lesions had a strong negative impact on OS in patients treated with S-1 and platinum for AGC.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Progression-free survival (PFS) indicates tumor growth earlier than overall survival (OS). Death is included as one of the defining events of PFS, and PFS indeed appears to show some correlation with OS. Nonetheless, PFS remains to be proven as a valid surrogate endpoint for OS in most cancers [1]. One meta-analysis investigating the relationship between PFS and OS in gastric cancer revealed a correlation between the two. The correlation was not strong enough, however, to merit PFS being regarded as a surrogate endpoint [2].
Progression-free survival is defined as a composite of a number of events, including new lesions, progression of existing lesions, and death. Therefore, the European Medicines Agency guideline recommends each individual event be analyzed and reported separately [3]. One randomized phase III study of breast cancer demonstrated that the prognosis in patients with new metastatic lesions was less favorable than in those with increased size of pre-existing lesions [4]. This suggests that progression type might likewise affect the prognosis in gastric cancer as well.
In investigating the association between various events occurring in a trial and OS, the standard approach adopted in many studies has been to employ a Cox regression model using time-dependent covariates [4–9]. However, the association between progression type and survival remains to be investigated by this method in gastric cancer.
The aim of the present report is to investigate the association between progression type and OS based on the results of an earlier randomized phase III G-SOX study [10] demonstrating the non-inferiority of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) to cisplatin plus S-1 (CS) in terms of PFS [hazard ratio (HR) of SOX versus CS, 1.004; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840–1.199; non-inferiority margin, 1.30] and OS (HR of SOX versus CS, 0.958; 95% CI, 0.803–1.142) in chemotherapy-naïve advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients.
Materials and methods
Study source
A total of 685 patients were enrolled in the G-SOX study (SOX group, 343; CS group, 342). The present study included 663 patients (full analysis set), excluding 22 patients because of withdrawal before treatment initiation, violation of GCP principles, or deviation from inclusion/exclusion criteria (SOX, 333; CS, 330). The tumors were radiologically assessed every 6 weeks from baseline to last evaluation before beginning post-study treatment. An independent review committee reviewed all images in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.0 [11]. The investigators identified progressive disease (PD) in 82% of patients, while the independent review committee identified it in 75%. Agreement between the assessments was 81%. The present study was based on the results of the independent review.
Classification of progression type
According to RECIST, the progression of target or non-target lesions represents the progression of existing lesions, while the development of new lesions indicates new metastases not detected at baseline. Here, these two types of lesion were categorized as new lesions (PD NL+) or no new lesions (PD NL−). When new lesions and enlargement of existing lesions were detected simultaneously, this was classified as PD NL+. When new lesions developed and the size of existing lesions remained unchanged, this was also classified as PD NL+. When no new lesions were detected and existing lesions enlarged, this was classified as PD NL−. Even if the study treatment was discontinued because of clinical PD, adverse events or others, the patients were categorized as either no PD, PD NL+, or PD NL− based on the CT assessments reviewed by the independent review committee since the assessments were continued until commencement of post-study treatment.
Statistical analysis
First, the numbers of patients with no PD, with PD NL−, with PD NL+, and death in the SOX and CS groups were determined. The reasons for treatment discontinuation in each group were also summarized according to progression type. The cumulative incidence function was estimated in PD NL− and PD NL+, with other types of progression considered as a competing risk. The HR of time-to-PD NL− for SOX versus CS and that for time-to-PD NL+ for SOX versus CS was estimated using a Cox regression model. In this analysis, events of other progression types were treated as censored.
Next, a Cox regression model was used to investigate the association between progression type and OS, with PD NL− and PD NL+ as time-dependent covariates, which change their values according to time-to-progression. Using Cox regression with these time-dependent covariates allows the states before and after progression to be compared, even if the events constitute competing risks. The presence or absence of PD NL− or PD NL+ was treated as a time-dependent covariate, as shown in Fig. 1. An illustration of how these time-dependent covariates were encoded in patients with no PD, with PD NL−, and with PD NL+ is provided in Supplementary Figure 1 (Online Resource 1). The state before PD NL− or PD NL+ was denoted as before-PD (0, 0). The state after PD NL− was denoted as after-PD NL− (1, 0). The state after PD NL+ was denoted as after-PD NL+ (0, 1). The inter-group HRs for SOX versus CS were calculated in before-PD (d0 in SOX versus d0 in CS), after-PD NL− (d1 in SOX versus d1 in CS), and after-PD NL+ (d2 in SOX versus d2 in CS). The HRs for after-PD NL− versus before-PD (d1 versus d0) and after-PD NL+ versus before-PD (d2 versus d0) were estimated in each treatment group.
Finally, Cox regression adjusted for the baseline background factors (including sex; age, <70 years or ≥70 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PS0 or PS1–2; disease status, recurrent or unresectable; tumor histology, intestinal or diffuse; peritoneal metastasis, present or absent; sum of tumor diameters, < median or ≥ median; and alkaline phosphatase, < median or ≥ median) was performed for further exploratory analyses. The median values and 95% CI of survival post-progression (SPP) [OS−PFS] for after-PD NL− and after-PD NL+ were also estimated in each treatment group, referring to Kristine’s report [12], along with their Kaplan-Meier curves. Kaplan-Meier plots on OS according to progression type were also estimated for reference.
Statistical analyses were performed with SAS v9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Incidence of progression type
The numbers of patients with no PD, with PD NL−, and with PD NL+ are shown in Table 1. In the SOX group (333 patients), 167 showed PD NL− and 91 PD NL+. In the CS group (330 patients), 147 showed PD NL− and 95 PD NL+. No clear difference was observed in the site of new lesions between the two groups. The reasons for treatment discontinuation in patients with no PD, with PD NL−, and with PD NL+ are shown in Supplementary Table 1 (Online Resource 2). Among the patients in whom treatment was discontinued because of clinical PD, the number of patients with no PD, with PD NL−, and with PD NL+ was 24, 6, and 2 in the SOX group and 30, 0, and 2 in the CS group, respectively. Descriptions of progression type and new lesions according to baseline metastatic sites are presented in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 (Online Resources 3 and 4).
Cumulative incidence of progression type
The cumulative incidence functions of PD NL+ and PD NL− are shown in Fig. 2. The cumulative incidence of PD NL− was higher than that of PD NL+. The incidences of PD NL− and PD NL+ were similar between SOX and CS.
Cox regression with time-dependent covariates
The results of the Cox regression for OS with time-dependent covariates are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3.
In the SOX group, the HR for after-PD NL− versus before-PD was 4.66 (95% CI, 3.21–6.77), while that for after-PD NL+ versus before-PD was 7.26 (95% CI, 4.89–10.80). In the CS group, the HR for after-PD NL− versus before-PD was 2.71 (95% CI, 1.95–3.75), while that for after-PD NL+ versus before-PD was 5.78 (95% CI, 4.13–8.08).
The results of the Cox regression adjusted for the baseline background factors are presented in Supplementary Table 4 (Online Resource 5). The inter-group HRs (SOX vs. CS) for each progression type and intra-group HRs for after-PD NL− versus before-PD and after-PD NL+ versus before-PD were similar to those described above.
Survival post-progression
In the SOX group, the median SPPs were 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.0–11.3) for after-PD NL− and 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.7–7.4) for after-PD NL+, while in the CS group, they were 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.5–11.3) for after-PD NL− and 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.0–6.7) for after-PD NL+. Kaplan-Meier plots of SPP and OS are presented in Supplementary Figures 2 and 3 (Online Resources 6 and 7).
Discussion
The results of the present study showed that the negative impact of PD NL+ on OS, in particular, was higher than that of PD NL−. The association between progression type and OS was almost comparable between the two treatment groups (SOX and CS).
One earlier meta-analysis suggested a moderate correlation between OS and PFS in AGC [2]. However, heterogeneity of progression was not taken into consideration in that report. We hypothesized that heterogeneity of progression affects OS in gastric cancer, although this has not been suggested in earlier studies. The present results indicate that differences in how each progression type affects OS influence the correlation between OS and PFS. This suggests that an exploratory analysis of progression type would be one feasible approach to understanding any inconsistencies that might arise between PFS and OS in comparative clinical trials.
One earlier study of breast cancer suggested that a new endpoint, defined as the time from randomization to progression with new metastasis or death, might improve the predictivity on OS [4]. It has been noted that it can be difficult to identify progression and measure lesions accurately by assessing pre-existing lesions, especially when the baseline lesions are small [13]. This suggests that endpoints focused on new lesions might be more adequate and predictive. This indicates that progression type is one candidate worth investigating in developing optimal endpoints. An evaluation of progression type, therefore, should be recommended in future clinical studies of gastric cancer.
Here, Cox regression with time-dependent covariates was selected to explore the association between progression type and OS. It has also been used in earlier studies in other cancers [4, 5]. We believe that this is the best approach in this setting. Information on post-progression survival may be of use in determining how progression type is likely to affect prognosis, but is limited by the number of patients and observation period. Moreover, Kaplan-Meier plots categorizing patients according to progression type are also inadequate as they do not reflect the time point of progression.
This study had two major limitations: first, it was a retrospective analysis of just one clinical trial, and SPPs for after-PD NL− and after-PD NL+ were not directly compared in a prospective manner; second, here we focused on progression observed during chemotherapy. Therefore, progression cannot be interpreted as a prognostic factor before treatment. Additionally, there is also a potential risk that the limited total number of target lesions representative of all involved organs proposed in the RECIST guidelines does not accurately reflect the tumor burden [5]. Even within pre-existing lesions, target or non-target lesions may have a different effect on prognosis. However, they were not investigated in the present study.
The present findings showed that the appearance of new lesions or an increase in the extent of tumors indicated a poorer prognosis. In clinical practice, therefore, progression type may provide useful information in determining a prognosis on termination of treatment. It may also help in determining subsequent treatment options.
As a rule, progression is usually treated irrespective of specific type when considering PFS. However, the present results revealed that progression accompanied by new metastatic lesions had a strong negative impact on OS in patients treated with S-1 and platinum for AGC. This suggests that progression type may constitute an important factor in evaluating the association between PFS and OS. The present findings, however, need to be validated in future studies.
References
US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. 2007.
Paoletti X, Oba K, Bang YJ, Bleiberg H, Boku N, Bouché O, 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.
European Medicines Agency. Appendix 1 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. 2012.
Twelves C, Cortes J, Kaufman PA, Yelle L, Awada A, Binder TA, et al. “New” metastases are associated with a poorer prognosis than growth of preexisting metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:150.
Litiere S, de Vries EG, Seymour L, Sargent D, Shankar L, Bogaerts J, et al. The components of progression as explanatory variables for overall survival in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 database. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1847–53.
Versluis J, Hazenberg CL, Passweg JR, van Putten WL, Maertens J, Biemond BJ, et al. Post-remission treatment with allogeneic stem cell transplantation in patients aged 60 years and older with acute myeloid leukaemia: a time-dependent analysis. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:427–36.
Cornelissen JJ, Breems D, van Putten WL, Gratwohl AA, Passweg JR, Pabst T, et al. Comparative analysis of the value of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia with monosomal karyotype versus other cytogenetic risk categories. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2140–6.
Zielinski C, Lang I, Beslija S, Kahan Z, Inbar MJ, Stemmer SM, et al. Predictive role of hand-foot syndrome in patients receiving first-line capecitabine plus bevacizumab for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:163–70.
Zhu AX, Sahani DV, Duda DG, di Tomaso E, Ancukiewicz M, Catalano OA, et al. Efficacy, safety, and potential biomarkers of sunitinib monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3027–35.
Yamada Y, Higuchi K, Nishikawa K, Gotoh M, Fuse N, Sugimoto N, et al. Phase III study comparing oxaliplatin plus S-1 with cisplatin plus S-1 in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:141–8.
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.
Broglio Kristine R, Berry Donald A. Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1642–9.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by Yakult Honsha. We would like to thank all the patients, clinicians, and support staff who participated in this study. We are grateful to Atsushi Sato, Kunihisa Miyakawa, Tohru Fukushima, Tsuyoshi Morimoto, and Shinjiro Sakaino for performing extramural reviews to assess the objective responses and PFS, as well as Yasuo Ohashi for his statistical advice. We also thank Keigo Makino, Terukazu Mitome, Takashi Taniguchi, and Hiroki Kageyama for their helpful advice. The authors would also like to thank Jeremy Williams of Tokyo Medical University for his assistance with the English of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Kazuhiro Nishikawa has received grants and personal fees from Yakult Honsha and personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Yasuhide Yamada has received honoraria from Yakult Honsha, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Masahiro Gotoh has received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Taiho Pharmaceutical, non-financial support from Yakult Honsha, personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Novartis Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Bayer, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Hideaki Bando has received research funds from Astra-Zeneca and honoraria from Taiho Pharmaceutical. Naotoshi Sugimoto has received honoraria from Yakult Honsha, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Tomohiro Nishina and Chikuma Hamada have received personal fees from Yakult Honsha and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Kenji Amagai has received research funding from Taiho Pharmaceutical. Akihito Tsuji has received honoraria from Yakult Honsha and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Kensei Yamaguchi has received personal fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Hisateru Yasui has received personal fees from Medicon. Shuichi Hironaka has received personal fees from Yakult Honsha, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Novartis Pharmaceutical. Ichinosuke Hyodo has received honoraria and advisory fees from Yakult Honsha, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Daiichi-Sankyo Pharmaceutical. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest.
Human rights statement and informed consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committees on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent or a substitute for it was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nishikawa, K., Yamada, Y., Ishido, K. et al. Impact of progression type on overall survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer based on randomized phase III study of S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin. Gastric Cancer 20, 640–645 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-016-0666-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-016-0666-5