Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.

Interstitial insertion of varying amounts of ABL-containing genetic material into chromosome 22 in Ph-negative CML.

We studied the cells from three selected patients with Ph-chromosome-negative chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) by Southern blotting, polymerase chain reaction, and in situ hybridization of informative probes to metaphase chromosomes. All three patients had rearrangement of M-BCR sequences in the BCR gene and expression of one or other of the mRNA species characteristic of Ph-positive CML. Leukemic metaphases studied after trypsin-Giemsa banding were indistinguishable from normal. The ABL probe localized both to chromosome 9 and 22 in each case. A probe containing 3' M-BCR sequences localized only to chromosome 22, and not to chromosome 9 as would be expected in Ph-positive CML. Two new probes that recognize different polymorphic regions distal to the ABL gene on chromosome 9 in normal subjects localized exclusively to chromosome 9 in two patients and to both chromosomes 9 and 22 in one patient. These results show that Ph-negative CML with BCR rearrangement is associated with insertion of a variable quantity of chromosome 9 derived material into chromosome 22q11; there is no evidence for reciprocal translocation of material from chromosome 22 to chromosome 9.