Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details
- PMID: 26552421
- PMCID: PMC5242560
- DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.8065
Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details
Abstract
Purpose: Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) has been widely tested in prostate cancer. However, phase III trials testing continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) versus IAD have reached inconclusive and seemingly contradictory results. Different design and conduct issues must be critically evaluated to better interpret the results.
Patients and methods: Seven published phase III trials were examined for prespecified design and outcomes. Treatment specifications; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were considered in terms of the results and conclusions reported.
Results: Five trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis. Only three trials had a uniform population and overall survival (OS) end point. All trials observed better outcomes in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) than assumed at time of study design, translating into prespecified NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms. Lower-than-expected event rates also reduced statistical power for the trials. Other factors, including length of follow-up, cause of death, QOL, and primary end point, and their impact on trial interpretation are discussed.
Conclusion: No trial to date has demonstrated survival superiority of IAD compared with CAD. Trials concluding IAD is noninferior to CAD were based on wide NIMs that included clinically important survival differences, not likely to be considered comparable by physicians or patients. Interim analyses relying on short follow-up and including a majority of non-prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted cautiously. Adequate follow-up is required to ensure capture of prostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.
© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found in the article online at www.jco.org. Author contributions are found at the end of this article.
Comment in
-
Intermittent Androgen Deprivation in Prostate Cancer: Are We Ready to Quit?J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 20;34(3):211-4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.1019. Epub 2015 Nov 30. J Clin Oncol. 2016. PMID: 26628474 No abstract available.
References
-
- Akakura K, Bruchovsky N, Goldenberg SL, et al. Effects of intermittent androgen suppression on androgen-dependent tumors. Apoptosis and serum prostate-specific antigen. Cancer. 1993;71:2782–2790. - PubMed
-
- Abrahamsson PA. Potential benefits of intermittent androgen suppression therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2010;57:49–59. - PubMed
-
- Buchan NC, Goldenberg SL. Intermittent androgen suppression for prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:552–560. - PubMed
-
- Niraula S, Le LW, Tannock IF. Treatment of prostate cancer with intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation: A systematic review of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2029–2036. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
