ArticleInternational journal of cancer2015
Why post-progression survival and post-relapse survival are not appropriate measures of efficacy in cancer randomized clinical trials.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Improved estimation of overall survival and progression-free survival for state transition modeling.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Author response to 'Comment on "Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of maintenance PARP inhibitor with or without bevacizumabTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Article
- When underlying biology threatens the randomization principle - initial gout flares of urate-lowering therapy.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2022Review
- Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Review
- Are Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Two Sides of the Same Coin, to Grade Recommendations for Drug Approval?Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Genetic heterogeneity and prognostic impact of recurrent ANK2 and TP53 mutations in mantle cell lymphoma: a multi-centre cohort study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Article
- Clinical significance of post-progression survival in lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comparisons of post-relapse survival (PRS) and post-progression survival have been used to measure efficacy in some cancer clinical trials. These comparisons are an attempt to account for second-line therapies and to identify benefits that do not translate in longer overall survival. However, the use of PRS comparisons can be misleading (either a longer or shorter PRS may indicate a benefit, depending on the circumstances) and can result in biased estimates (because of selection). Here, we describe the problems surrounding PRS comparisons and propose alternative approaches to deal with non-randomized therapies administered after progression to the experimental treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.