Oncology trials often report on progression-free survival or overall survival, but the authors of an analysis presented during a poster session today at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress argue that such endpoints are less sensitive then short-term overall response rate.
Oncology trials often report on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), but the authors of an analysis presented during a poster session today at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress argue that such endpoints are less sensitive then short-term overall response rate (ORR) in confirming biosimilarity when long median PFS or OS are expected.
The authors presented considerations on interpreting survival data as illustrated by a sensitivity analysis from a recent study of biosimilar rituximab. In a confirmatory phase 3 study, treatment-naïve patients with follicular lymphoma received either European Medicines Agency-approved GP2013 (n = 314) or reference rituximab (n = 315).
Patients who responded to an induction treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy received either GP2013 or reference rituximab as maintenance monotherapy.
The primary endpoint for equivalence was ORR at the end of induction. Secondary endpoints included PFS and OS.
As of December 2016, the median follow-up was 23.6 months for the GP2013 arm and 24.2 months for the reference rituximab arm. The study met its primary endpoints to confirm biosimilarity.
Median PFS and OS could not be estimated. Hazard rations for PFS and OS were 1.31 (90% confidence interval [CI]; range, 1.02 to 1.69) and 0.77 (90% CI; range, 0.29 to 1.22), respectively.
A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that PFS survival curves diverged between 12 and 24 months, yet the curves ran parallel outside of that period, contrary to the proportional hazard assumption of the Cox model. Complete response (CR) rates were similar between treatments at all time points, including at 33 months.
The researchers concluded that a small sample size, a low event rate, data immaturity, and other aspects of study design can decrease a study’s sensitivity in biosimilarity assessments, as demonstrated by the fact that hazard ratios for PFS and OS had opposite directions, while CR rates remained similar across time.
PFS and OS results, the authors say, should be interpreted with caution, as they may not reflect either a difference or a lack of a difference between treatments.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Panelists Stress Stakeholder Education to Build Confidence in Biosimilars
October 31st 2024By expanding educational initiatives to clarify biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability, stakeholders can foster trust, improve access, and ensure that biosimilars are widely accepted as high-quality, cost-effective alternatives to originator biologics.
Insights from Festival of Biologics: Dracey Poore Discusses Cardinal Health’s 2024 Biosimilar Report
May 19th 2024The discussion highlights key emerging trends from the Festival of Biologics conference and the annual Cardinal Health Biosimilars Report, including the importance of sustainability in the health care landscape and the challenges and successes in biosimilar adoption and affordability.
Strengthening the Supply Chain: Key Insights From FDA Commissioner Dr Robert Califf
October 25th 2024At the GRx+Biosims conference, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, stressed the urgent need for data transparency in the global supply chain and the role of collaboration and artificial intelligence in ensuring the resilience of biosimilar and generic drug production.
FDA and Industry Experts Unpack Biosimilar Device Requirements
October 23rd 2024At the GRx+Biosims 2024 conference, a panel of industry experts and FDA officials discussed evolving device requirements for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, highlighting new approaches to comparative use human factors studies, regulatory challenges, and alternative validation methods.