Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25813143›Full record

ReviewUrologic oncology2015

Measures of survival benefit in cancer drug development and their limitations.

Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati, Daniel W Lin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Urologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Ruth EtzioniDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: retzioni@fhcrc.org.
Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Daniel W LinDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.

Funding

TRANSCRIPTOME AND PROTEOME STRATIFICATION OF PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA PHENOTYPESP50CA097186 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI PETER S NELSON · 2002 to 2026
$58.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097186NCI NIH HHS P50CA097186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA variety of measures of survival benefit are available to an investigator comparing outcomes across the various arms of a drug development trial. In this article, we systematically review the most common measures of comparative survival used in published studies. MATERIALS: We distinguish between relative and absolute survival differences, and measures of instantaneous and cumulative risk. We consider settings in which the end point is overall survival as well as those in which disease-specific end points are of primary interest.

resultsWe note that different measures capture different aspects of benefit, and some may be more reliable than others or more representative of clinically relevant benefit.

conclusionsRather than simply using procedures that have become standard, analyses should identify the most clinically relevant measures of effect and apply procedures that reliably estimate these.

Indexed as

Drug DesignOutcome Assessment, Health CareAntineoplastic AgentsChemistry, PharmaceuticalDisease-Free SurvivalHumansNeoplasmsProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAntineoplastic AgentsCompeting risksDisease-specific mortalitySurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID25813143
PMCPMC4403641

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.