Cargando…

Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival (OS) in oncology. Validation of PFS as a surrogate must be done for each indication and each intervention. We aimed to identify all studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in onc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Belin, Lisa, Tan, Aidan, De Rycke, Yann, Dechartres, Agnès
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32214230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0805-y
_version_ 1783538851702112256
author Belin, Lisa
Tan, Aidan
De Rycke, Yann
Dechartres, Agnès
author_facet Belin, Lisa
Tan, Aidan
De Rycke, Yann
Dechartres, Agnès
author_sort Belin, Lisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival (OS) in oncology. Validation of PFS as a surrogate must be done for each indication and each intervention. We aimed to identify all studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in oncology, and to describe their methodological characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane Library with no limitation on time, selected relevant studies and extracted data in duplicate on how surrogacy was evaluated (meta-analytic approach, assessment of correlation and level of evaluation). RESULTS: We identified 91 studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in 24 cancer localisations. Although a meta-analytic approach was used in 83 (91%) studies, the methods used to validate PFS as a surrogate of OS were heterogeneous across studies. Of the 47 studies concluding that PFS is a good surrogate for OS, for 15 (32%), there was no quantitative argument for surrogacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies used a meta-analytic approach as recommended, our methodological review highlights heterogeneity in methods and reporting, which stresses the importance of developing and applying clear recommendations in this area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7250908
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72509082021-03-26 Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review Belin, Lisa Tan, Aidan De Rycke, Yann Dechartres, Agnès Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival (OS) in oncology. Validation of PFS as a surrogate must be done for each indication and each intervention. We aimed to identify all studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in oncology, and to describe their methodological characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane Library with no limitation on time, selected relevant studies and extracted data in duplicate on how surrogacy was evaluated (meta-analytic approach, assessment of correlation and level of evaluation). RESULTS: We identified 91 studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in 24 cancer localisations. Although a meta-analytic approach was used in 83 (91%) studies, the methods used to validate PFS as a surrogate of OS were heterogeneous across studies. Of the 47 studies concluding that PFS is a good surrogate for OS, for 15 (32%), there was no quantitative argument for surrogacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies used a meta-analytic approach as recommended, our methodological review highlights heterogeneity in methods and reporting, which stresses the importance of developing and applying clear recommendations in this area. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-03-26 2020-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7250908/ /pubmed/32214230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0805-y Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Cancer Research UK 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Note This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
spellingShingle Article
Belin, Lisa
Tan, Aidan
De Rycke, Yann
Dechartres, Agnès
Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title_full Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title_fullStr Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title_short Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
title_sort progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32214230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0805-y
work_keys_str_mv AT belinlisa progressionfreesurvivalasasurrogateforoverallsurvivalinoncologytrialsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT tanaidan progressionfreesurvivalasasurrogateforoverallsurvivalinoncologytrialsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT deryckeyann progressionfreesurvivalasasurrogateforoverallsurvivalinoncologytrialsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT dechartresagnes progressionfreesurvivalasasurrogateforoverallsurvivalinoncologytrialsamethodologicalsystematicreview