4.7 Article

Surrogate end-points for overall survival in 22 neoadjuvant trials of gastro-oesophageal cancers

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 8-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.032

关键词

Oesophageal cancer; Gastric cancer; Neoadjuvant therapy; Surrogate end-points; Overall survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The surrogacy between disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) has been evaluated in patients with gastric cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. Similar analyses in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) or chemotherapy (CT) for gastro-oesophageal (GE) cancer have not yet been performed. Methods: We evaluated the correlation between DFS and pathologic complete response (pCR) with OS in patients with GE carcinomas enrolled in randomised studies. A weighted linear regression analysis was used to evaluate surrogacy. Correlations were evaluated by squared correlation R-2. Surrogacy of DFS and pCR with OS was assessed through the correlation between end-points and OS (individual-level surrogacy), and between the treatment effects on the end-points (trial-level surrogacy). Correlations were weighted by the number of patients in the intent-to-treat population. Results: Twenty-two trials were included for a total of 4749 patients that received CTRT or CT for gastric or oesophageal cancers. Treatment effect on surrogates did not correlate with treatment effect on OS (R-2 = 0.27, and R-2 = 0.17, for DFS and pCR) at the trial level. In subgroup analysis surrogacy of DFS did not vary according to histology or treatment modality but was good in gastric cancer and poor in oesophageal cancers. Conclusions: DFS and pCR did not correlate with OS, and should not be used as surrogate end-points in patients with GE cancer who have undergone neoadjuvant therapy. OS should still represent the primary end-point to compare treatments in future randomised clinical trials. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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