Statistical Issues in Incorporating and Testing

Biomarkers in Phase III Clinical Trials

Statistical Issues in Incorporating and Testing

Biomarkers in Phase III Clinical Trials

FDA/Industry Workshop; September 29, 2006

Daniel Sargent, PhD

Sumithra Mandrekar, PhD

Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic

L Collette, EORTC

FDA/Industry Workshop; September 29, 2006

Daniel Sargent, PhD

Sumithra Mandrekar, PhD

Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic

L Collette, EORTC

2

What are we testingWhat are we testing

• A (novel) therapeutic whose efficacy is predicted by a marker?

• A marker proposed to predict the efficacy of an (existing) therapeutic?

• A (novel) therapeutic whose efficacy is predicted by a marker?

• A marker proposed to predict the efficacy of an (existing) therapeutic?

3

Preliminary informationPreliminary information

Methods & feasibility ofmeasurement of the marker

in the target population

Specificity to the cancer of interestCut point for classification

Prevalence of marker expression in the target population

Properties as a prognostic marker(in absence of treatment or

With non targeted std agent)Expected marker predictive effect

Endpoint of interest

4

Phase II/III TrialsPhase II/III Trials

Patient Selection for targeted therapies

• Test the recommended dose on patients who are most likely to respond based on their molecular expression levels

• May result in a large savings of patients (Simon & Maitournam, CCR 2004)

Patient Selection for targeted therapies

• Test the recommended dose on patients who are most likely to respond based on their molecular expression levels

• May result in a large savings of patients (Simon & Maitournam, CCR 2004)

5

Trials in targeted populationsTrials in targeted populations

• Gains in efficiency depend on marker prevalence and relative efficacy in marker + and marker - patients

• Gains in efficiency depend on marker prevalence and relative efficacy in marker + and marker - patients

Prevalence Relative Efficacy

Efficiency Gain

25% 0% 16x

25% 50% 2.5x

50% 0% 4x

50% 50% 1.8x

75% 0% 1.8x

75% 50% 1.3x(Simon & Maitournam, CCR 2004)

6

Phase II/III TrialsPhase II/III Trials

Designs for Targeted Trials

May use standard approaches.

Possible Issues

• Could lead to negative trials when the agent could have possible “clinical benefit”, since precise mechanism of action is unknown

• Could miss efficacy in other patients

• Inability to test association of the biologic endpoints with clinical outcomes in a Phase II setting

Designs for Targeted Trials

May use standard approaches.

Possible Issues

• Could lead to negative trials when the agent could have possible “clinical benefit”, since precise mechanism of action is unknown

• Could miss efficacy in other patients

• Inability to test association of the biologic endpoints with clinical outcomes in a Phase II setting

7

Targeted TrialsTargeted Trials

Additional considerations

• Not always obvious as to who is likely to respond - often identified only after testing on all patients

• Slower accrual, and need to screen all patients anyway

• Need real time method for assessing patients who are / are not likely to respond

Additional considerations

• Not always obvious as to who is likely to respond - often identified only after testing on all patients

• Slower accrual, and need to screen all patients anyway

• Need real time method for assessing patients who are / are not likely to respond

8

Example: C-225 in colon cancerExample: C-225 in colon cancer

• Early trials mandated EGRF expression • (Saltz, JCO 2004, Cunningham, NEJM 2004)

• Response rate did not correlate with expression level (Cunningham, NEJM 2004)

• Faint: RR 21%• Weak or Moderate: RR 25%• Strong: RR 23%

• Case series demonstrates no correlation between expression and response

• (Chung, JCO 2005)

• Currently indicated only in patients with EGFR expressing tumors, but most current studies do not require EGFR expression

• Early trials mandated EGRF expression • (Saltz, JCO 2004, Cunningham, NEJM 2004)

• Response rate did not correlate with expression level (Cunningham, NEJM 2004)

• Faint: RR 21%• Weak or Moderate: RR 25%• Strong: RR 23%

• Case series demonstrates no correlation between expression and response

• (Chung, JCO 2005)

• Currently indicated only in patients with EGFR expressing tumors, but most current studies do not require EGFR expression

9

Design of Tumor Marker StudiesDesign of Tumor Marker Studies

• Current staging and risk-stratification methods incompletely predict prognosis or treatment efficacy

• New therapeutic options emerging

• Optimizing and individualizing therapy is becoming increasingly desirable

• Very few potential biological markers are developed to the point of allowing reliable use in clinical practice

• Current staging and risk-stratification methods incompletely predict prognosis or treatment efficacy

• New therapeutic options emerging

• Optimizing and individualizing therapy is becoming increasingly desirable

• Very few potential biological markers are developed to the point of allowing reliable use in clinical practice

10

Prognostic MarkerPrognostic Marker

Single trait or signature of traits that separates different populations with respect to the risk of an outcome of interest in absence of treatment or despite non targeted “standard” treatment

Single trait or signature of traits that separates different populations with respect to the risk of an outcome of interest in absence of treatment or despite non targeted “standard” treatment

PrognosticNo treatment or

Standard, non targeted treatment

Marker +

Marker –

11

Predictive MarkerPredictive Marker

Single trait or signature of traits that separates different populations with respect to the outcome of interest in response to a particular (targeted) treatment

Single trait or signature of traits that separates different populations with respect to the outcome of interest in response to a particular (targeted) treatment

PredictiveNo treatment

or Standard

Marker +

Marker –

Targeted

Treatment

12

Prognostic markerSeries of patients

with standard treatment

Predictive MarkersRandomized Clinical Trials

Validation

Designs?

13

Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials

• Trials to assess clinical usefulness of predictive markers – i.e., does use of the marker result in a clinical benefit of a therapy

• Upfront stratification for the marker status before randomization

• Randomize and use a marker-based strategy to compare outcome between marker-based arm with non-marker based arm

Sargent et al, JCO 2005

• Trials to assess clinical usefulness of predictive markers – i.e., does use of the marker result in a clinical benefit of a therapy

• Upfront stratification for the marker status before randomization

• Randomize and use a marker-based strategy to compare outcome between marker-based arm with non-marker based arm

Sargent et al, JCO 2005

14

Register Test Marker

Marker Level (-)

Randomize

Treatment A

Marker Level (+)

Treatment B

Sargent et al., JCO 2005

Design I: upfront StratificationDesign I: upfront Stratification

Randomize

Treatment A

Treatment B

Power trial separately withinmarker groups

15

Approach I: Separate TestsApproach I: Separate Tests

Marker -

Marker +

R

R

Test marker

Treatment A (Std)

Treatment B (New)

Treatment A (Std)

Treatment B (New)

Statistical testWith power

Statistical testWith power

16

Approach II: InteractionApproach II: Interaction

Marker -

Marker +

R

R

Test marker

Treatment A (Std)

Treatment B (New)

Treatment A (Std)

Treatment B (New)

Statistical testWith power

17

Marker-based strategy designMarker-based strategy design

M -

M +

RTest

marker

Treatment A

Treatment B

Marker-Based

Strategy

Non MarkerBased

Strategy

Treatment A

StatisticalTest with

Power

18

Register

Marker Based Strategy

Non Marker Based Strategy

Randomize

Treatment A

Treatment B

Marker Level (-)

Treatment A

Marker Level (+) Treatment B

Test Marker

Sargent et al., JCO 2005

Design II: Marker Based StrategyDesign II: Marker Based Strategy

Randomize

19

Median OS Irinotecan/

Oxaliplatin (IO)

Irinotecan/5-FU/L

TS low

(50%) 16 months

20 months

TS high

(50%) 14 months 12 months

HR: 1.25

Sample Size Interaction DesignSample Size Interaction Design

HR: 0.86

844 †

1705 †

2223†2756†

HR: 0.691220 †

20

Sample size: Strategy DesignSample size: Strategy Design

TS -

TS +

IFL (20 mo)

IO (14 mo)

Marker-Based

Strategy

Non MarkerBased

Strategy

IFL (15 mo)

IO (15 mo)

R 15 mo

16.5 mo

HR0.91R4629

†

21

DiscussionDiscussion

• Sample Size • Typically large, especially if the

marker effect size is modest• Depends on many factors such as

• The marker prevalence in the target population

• The baseline risk in the unselected population receiving standard treatment

• The expected treatment difference in all marker groups

• Sample Size • Typically large, especially if the

marker effect size is modest• Depends on many factors such as

• The marker prevalence in the target population

• The baseline risk in the unselected population receiving standard treatment

• The expected treatment difference in all marker groups

22

ConclusionsConclusions

• The Marker Based Strategy design is preferable whenever more than one treatment are involved or when the treatment choice is based on a panel of markers

• That design generally requires more patients than the Interaction design

• The marker is also prognostic • Dilution (marker + patients receive the targeted

therapy in the randomized non marker based group)

• The Marker Based Strategy design is preferable whenever more than one treatment are involved or when the treatment choice is based on a panel of markers

• That design generally requires more patients than the Interaction design

• The marker is also prognostic • Dilution (marker + patients receive the targeted

therapy in the randomized non marker based group)

23

ConclusionsConclusions

• In the case of a single marker and two treatments, Interaction Design preferable

• Separate Tests versus Interaction ?• Depends on strength of evidence needed for the

marker effect and sample size

• Whenever the interaction HR is larger than any of the treatment HRs (generally qualitative interaction) the interaction approach demands less patients

• A partial Separate Tests approach may be useful whenever no treatment difference is expected in one of the marker groups

• In the case of a single marker and two treatments, Interaction Design preferable

• Separate Tests versus Interaction ?• Depends on strength of evidence needed for the

marker effect and sample size

• Whenever the interaction HR is larger than any of the treatment HRs (generally qualitative interaction) the interaction approach demands less patients

• A partial Separate Tests approach may be useful whenever no treatment difference is expected in one of the marker groups