4.7 Article

Identification of potential surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials of aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: correlation of complete response, time-to-event and overall survival end points

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 1392-1403

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq615

Keywords

clinical trials; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; surrogate end points

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The correlation between efficacy end points in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) was investigated to identify an appropriate surrogate end point for overall survival (OS). Methods: RCTs of previously untreated NHL published from 1990 to 2009 were identified. Associations between absolute differences in efficacy end points were determined using nonparametric Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (rs). Results: Thirty-eight RCTs representing 85 treatment arms for aggressive NHL and 20 RCTs representing 42 arms for indolent NHL were included. For aggressive NHL, differences in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS)/event-free survival (EFS) were high correlated with differences in 5-year OS {r(s) of 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.96]} and linear regression determined that a 10% improvement in 3-year EFS or PFS would predict for a 7% +/- 1% improvement in 5-year OS. For indolent histology disease, differences in complete response were strongly correlated with differences in 3-year EFS [r(s) 0.86 (95% CI 0.35-0.97)], but there was no correlation between 3-year time-to-event end points and 5-year OS. Conclusions: Improvements in 3-year EFS/PFS are highly correlated with improvements in 5-year OS in aggressive NHL and should be explored as a candidate surrogate end point. Definition of these relationships may inform future clinical trial design and interpretation of interim trial data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available