Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18828930›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2008

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer.

Rebecca A Miksad, Vera Zietemann, Raffaella Gothe, Ruth Schwarzer, Annette Conrads-Frank, Petra Schnell-Inderst, Björn Stollenwerk, Uwe Siebert

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Trends in endpoint selection in clinical trials of advanced breast cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Multitrial Evaluation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in First-Line Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rebecca A MiksadDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA. rmiksad@bidmc.harvard.edu
Vera Zietemann
Raffaella Gothe
Ruth Schwarzer
Annette Conrads-Frank
Petra Schnell-Inderst
Björn Stollenwerk
Uwe Siebert

Funding

Program in Cancer Research Outcomes Training (PCORT)R25CA092203 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GAZELLE, G SCOTT · 2002 to 2016
$8.2M
Optimizing localized therapy for primary liver cancer: a clinical trial and modelK23CA139005 · NCI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI MIKSAD, REBECCA ANNE · 2009 to 2013
$847k
NCI NIH HHS K23 CA139005NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092203NCI NIH HHS R25 CA 92203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProgression-free survival (PFS) has not been validated as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) for anthracycline (A) and taxane-based (T) chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Using trial-level, meta-analytic approaches, we evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint.

methodsA literature review identified randomized, controlled A and T trials for ABC. Progression-based endpoints were classified by prospective definitions. Treatment effects were derived as hazard ratios for PFS (HRPFS) and OS (HROS). Kappa statistic assessed overall agreement. A fixed-effects regression model was used to predict HROS from observed HRPFS. Cross-validation was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed for PFS definition, year of last patient recruitment, line of treatment, and constant rate assumption.

resultsSixteen A and fifteen T trials met inclusion criteria, producing seventeen A (n = 4,323) and seventeen T (n = 5,893) trial-arm pairs. Agreement (kappa statistic) between the direction of HROS and HRPFS was 0.71 for A (p = .0029) and 0.75 for T (p = .0028). While HRPFS was a statistically significant predictor of HROS for both A (p = .0019) and T (p = .012), the explained variances were 0.49 (A) and 0.35 (T). In cross-validation, 97 percent of the 95 percent prediction intervals crossed the equivalence line, and the direction of predicted HROS agreed with observed HROS in 82 percent (A) and 76 percent (T). Results were robust in sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that the trial-level treatment effect on PFS is significantly associated with the trial-level treatment effect on OS. However, prediction of OS based on PFS is surrounded with uncertainty.

Indexed as

AnthracyclinesAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificitySurvival AnalysisTaxoidsAnthracyclinesAntineoplastic AgentsTaxoids

Identifiers

PMID18828930
PMCPMC4744081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.