TriangleNCT03043872 · OUTCOME
OS in the China Cohort; Assessed at China Cohort First Analysis; D + EP Compared With EP
Results reported by the registry submitting party. Population, time horizon, units and missing values must be read together.
- Measure
- MEDIAN
- Unit
- months
- Interval / dispersion
- 95% Confidence Interval
- Time frame
- From baseline until death due to any cause. Assessed until China cohort first analysis DCO (maximum of approximately 19 months).
What was measured
OS was defined as the time from date of randomization until death due to any cause. Any patient not known to have died at the time of analysis was censored based on the last recorded date on which the patient was known to be alive. Median OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. An analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP in the China cohort was pre-specified at approximately 60% maturity (to ensure a similar maturity to the interim analysis of the Global cohort). This primary outcome measure presents OS for analysis of D + EP vs EP at the China cohort first analysis DCO (06 January 2020), and is comparable in terms of maturity with the interim analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP in the Global cohort. Analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP and for D + T + EP vs EP at the time of the China cohort second analysis is presented separately in the subsequent primary outcome measure.
Analysis population: The China FAS included all randomized patients in the China cohort. China cohort first analysis for OS was performed for comparison of the D + EP vs EP groups only.
Groups in this outcome
China Cohort: D + EP
During Chemotherapy: Patients received durvalumab (D) 1500 mg IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). For chemotherapy (EP), patients received etoposide (80-100 mg/m\^2) with either carboplatin (area under the curve 5-6) or cisplatin (75-80 mg/m\^2) IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). Post-Chemotherapy: Patients then continued to receive durvalumab 1500 mg IV infusion Q4W from Week 12 until PD, unless there was unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or another discontinuation criterion was met.
China Cohort: EP
For chemotherapy (EP), patients received etoposide (80-100 mg/m\^2) with either carboplatin (area under the curve 5-6) or cisplatin (75-80 mg/m\^2) IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). An additional 2 doses of EP (at Weeks 12 and 15) could be given at the investigators' discretion if clinically indicated.
| Group | Source count |
|---|---|
| China Cohort: D + EP | 61 |
| China Cohort: EP | 62 |
Reported measurements
Source class 1
| Group | Value | Spread | Lower | Upper | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China Cohort: D + EP | 14.4 | Not reported | 12.3 | NA | Upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated as it was not reached. |
| China Cohort: EP | 10.9 | Not reported | 8.9 | 14.0 | Not reported |
Source statistical analyses
- ci Lower Limit
- 0.414
- ci Num Sides
- TWO_SIDED
- ci Pct Value
- 95
- ci Upper Limit
- 1.029
- estimate Comment
- The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.
- group Description
- D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.
- group Ids
- OG000
- OG001
- non Inferiority Type
- OTHER
- p Value
- 0.0664
- p Value Comment
- Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.
- param Type
- Hazard Ratio (HR)
- param Value
- 0.65
- statistical Method
- Log Rank
Complete source fields
- analyses
- ci Lower Limit
- 0.414
- ci Num Sides
- TWO_SIDED
- ci Pct Value
- 95
- ci Upper Limit
- 1.029
- estimate Comment
- The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.
- group Description
- D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.
- group Ids
- OG000
- OG001
- non Inferiority Type
- OTHER
- p Value
- 0.0664
- p Value Comment
- Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.
- param Type
- Hazard Ratio (HR)
- param Value
- 0.65
- statistical Method
- Log Rank
- classes
- categories
- measurements
- comment
- Upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated as it was not reached.
- group Id
- OG000
- lower Limit
- 12.3
- upper Limit
- NA
- value
- 14.4
- group Id
- OG001
- lower Limit
- 8.9
- upper Limit
- 14.0
- value
- 10.9
- denoms
- counts
- group Id
- OG000
- value
- 61
- group Id
- OG001
- value
- 62
- units
- Participants
- description
- OS was defined as the time from date of randomization until death due to any cause. Any patient not known to have died at the time of analysis was censored based on the last recorded date on which the patient was known to be alive. Median OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. An analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP in the China cohort was pre-specified at approximately 60% maturity (to ensure a similar maturity to the interim analysis of the Global cohort). This primary outcome measure presents OS for analysis of D + EP vs EP at the China cohort first analysis DCO (06 January 2020), and is comparable in terms of maturity with the interim analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP in the Global cohort. Analysis of OS for D + EP vs EP and for D + T + EP vs EP at the time of the China cohort second analysis is presented separately in the subsequent primary outcome measure.
- dispersion Type
- 95% Confidence Interval
- groups
- description
- During Chemotherapy: Patients received durvalumab (D) 1500 mg IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). For chemotherapy (EP), patients received etoposide (80-100 mg/m\^2) with either carboplatin (area under the curve 5-6) or cisplatin (75-80 mg/m\^2) IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). Post-Chemotherapy: Patients then continued to receive durvalumab 1500 mg IV infusion Q4W from Week 12 until PD, unless there was unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or another discontinuation criterion was met.
- id
- OG000
- title
- China Cohort: D + EP
- description
- For chemotherapy (EP), patients received etoposide (80-100 mg/m\^2) with either carboplatin (area under the curve 5-6) or cisplatin (75-80 mg/m\^2) IV infusion Q3W for 4 doses/cycles (Weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9). An additional 2 doses of EP (at Weeks 12 and 15) could be given at the investigators' discretion if clinically indicated.
- id
- OG001
- title
- China Cohort: EP
- param Type
- MEDIAN
- population Description
- The China FAS included all randomized patients in the China cohort. China cohort first analysis for OS was performed for comparison of the D + EP vs EP groups only.
- reporting Status
- POSTED
- time Frame
- From baseline until death due to any cause. Assessed until China cohort first analysis DCO (maximum of approximately 19 months).
- title
- OS in the China Cohort; Assessed at China Cohort First Analysis; D + EP Compared With EP
- type
- PRIMARY
- unit Of Measure
- months
Download exact source JSON → · Snapshot ctgov-results-191f4516d4760045304b24a0
Preserved source evidence · Not medical advice