Dataset Information

Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: The relationship between overall survival (OS) and disease progression end points has been demonstrated in colorectal, colon, and non-small cell lung cancers. We assessed the association between OS and time-to-progression (TTP) or progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) studies. A literature search retrieved all randomised controlled trials since 1994 in patients with MBC in which OS and either TTP or PFS were reported. Summary data on trial and patient characteristics were abstracted. Study effect sizes were derived as the ratio of median progression (or survival) times, which approximates the hazard ratio. Effects were centred at zero for regression analyses weighted by sample size. Numerous treatments were represented in 67 studies (17 081 patients). Modeling showed a positive association between outcomes for progression and survival (R(2)=0.30) with a slope of 0.32 (P<0.001) and a non-significant intercept. Thus, a treatment effect on TTP/PFS translated into a concordant effect on OS, but with attenuated effect size. Similar results were found in models of subsets and sensitivity analyses. These results demonstrate that treatment effects on progression end points in MBC trials are expected to result in treatment differences on OS that are smaller yet consistently in the same direction.

SUBMITTER: Sherrill B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2584937 | biostudies-other | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOverall survival (OS) is the gold standard endpoint to assess treatment efficacy in cancer clinical trials. In metastatic breast cancer (mBC), progression-free survival (PFS) is commonly used as an intermediate endpoint. Evidence remains scarce regarding the degree of association between PFS and OS. Our study aimed to describe the individual-level association between real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS according to first-line treatment in female patients with mBC managed in real-world setting for each BC subtype (defined by status for both hormone-receptor [HR] expression and HER2 protein expression/gene amplification).MethodsWe extracted data from the ESME mBC database (NCT03275311) which gathers deidentified data from consecutive patients managed in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Adult women diagnosed with mBC between 2008 and 2017 were included. Endpoints (PFS, OS) were described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Individual-level associations between rwPFS and OS were estimated using the Spearman's correlation coefficient. Analyses were conducted by tumor subtype.Results20,033 women were eligible. Median age was 60.0 years. Median follow-up duration was 62.3 months. Median rwPFS ranged from 6.0 months (95% CI 5.8-6.2) for HR-/HER2 - subtype to 13.3 months (36% CI 12.7-14.3) for HR + /HER2 + subtype. Correlation coefficients were highly variable across subtypes and first-line (L1) treatments. Among patients with HR - /HER2 - mBC, correlation coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.81, suggesting a strong rwPFS/OS association. For HR + /HER2 + mBC patients, the individual-level associations were weak to strong with coefficients ranging from 0.33 to 0.43 for monotherapy and from 0.67 to 0.78 for combined therapies.ConclusionsOur study provides comprehensive information on individual-level association between rwPFS and OS for L1 treatments in mBC women managed in real-life practice. Our results could be used as a basis for future research dedicated to surrogate endpoint candidates.

Project description:Introduction: With a gap in a full understanding of the mechanisms by which survival is extended for patients with cancer who are treated with novel biologic and targeted agents, there is the risk that discordant progression-free and overall survival outcomes are observed due to poor clinical trial design or biases in the interpretation of data. This study was designed to examine the role of study quality and design on the outcomes observed with biologic and targeted agents. Methods: A review of studies in clinicaltrials.gov supplemented with a literature review in OVID Medline was conducted to identify all randomized trials of a biologic/targeted agent versus a non-biologic/targeted comparator in oncology that report both median overall and progression-free survival outcomes. Details of the study, design, population, drugs, and outcomes were extracted. Study quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized using SPSS 22.0.0.0. Results: A total of 192 unique studies of 206 pairwise comparisons between a biologic/targeted and comparator were identified. The average absolute magnitude of post-progression survival (difference between OS and PFS) was 9.7 months for biologic/targeted therapy and 9.8 for the comparator. A total of 64 comparisons (31.1%) showed an increase in OS and decrease in PFS, or vice versa, and 25 (12.1%) showed a magnitude of more than 4 months difference between the delta of OS and delta of PFS between the biologic/targeted and comparator arms. Average study quality was high overall (7.7/10), and was comparable for studies with directional differences (7.2/10) as well as for those with the greatest magnitude in post-progression survival (7.4/10). Conclusion: This review and analysis specifically examined small PFS benefit with large OS benefit as well as small OS benefit with large PFS benefit, including differences in direction of PFS and OS outcomes. No evidence was identified that these are the result of poor study design, but may rather be due to the mechanism of action, specific disease, and population under study. Further work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of novel biologic/targeted agents to better understand their interaction with the tumor microenvironment.

Dataset Information

Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets