4.7 Article

The validity of progression-free survival 2 as a surrogate trial end point for overall survival

期刊

CANCER
卷 128, 期 7, 页码 1449-1457

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34085

关键词

advanced cancer; clinical trial; oncology; progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2); solid tumor; surrogate end point

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard endpoint for oncology trials, but progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2) has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint due to delays in OS data maturation. A meta-analysis found that PFS-2 had a moderate correlation with OS across diverse tumors and therapies, performing consistently better than PFS-1 and objective response rate (ORR). PFS-2 should be included as a key endpoint in future randomized trials of solid tumors.
Background Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard end point for oncology trials. However, the availability of multiple therapeutic options after progression and crossover to receive investigational agents confound and delay OS data maturation. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on first subsequent therapy, has been proposed as a surrogate for OS. Using a meta-analytic approach, the authors aimed to assess the association between OS and PFS-2 and compare this with progression-free survival 1 (PFS-1) and the objective response rate (ORR). Methods An electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized trials of systemic therapies in advanced solid tumors that reported PFS-2 as a prespecified end point. Correlations between OS and PFS-2, OS and PFS-1, and OS and ORR as hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were assessed via linear regression weighted by trial size. Results Thirty-eight trials were included, and they comprised 19,031 patients across 8 tumor types. PFS-2 displayed a moderate correlation with OS (r = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.69). Conversely, correlations of ORR (r = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.00-0.13) and PFS-1 (r = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.00-0.33) were poor. The findings for PFS-2 were consistent for subgroup analyses by treatment type (immunotherapy vs nonimmunotherapy: r = 0.67 vs 0.67), survival post progression (r = 0.86 vs 0.79), and percentage not receiving subsequent treatment (r = 0.70 vs 0.63). Conclusions Across diverse tumors and therapies, the treatment effect on PFS-2 correlated moderately with the treatment effect on OS. PFS-2 performed consistently better than PFS-1 and ORR, regardless of postprogression treatment and postprogression survival. PFS-2 should be included as a key trial end point in future randomized trials of solid tumors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据