ArticleStatistics in medicine2015
Bias in progression-free survival analysis due to intermittent assessment of progression.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concordance in assessments between investigators and blinded independent central review (BICR) in hematology oncology clinical trials: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of 49 Roche Oncology Trials Comparing Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and Local Evaluation to Assess the Value of BICR.The oncologist · 2024Pooled it
- Radiomics-based outcome prediction for irinotecan-TACE in colorectal liver metastases: advanced analysis from the prospective CIREL trial.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Outcomes that matter to patients with cancer: living longer and living better.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Statistical approaches for component-wise censored composite endpoints.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Performance of Cox regression models for composite time-to-event endpoints with component-wise censoring in randomized trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2023Article
- Data Challenges for Externally Controlled Trials: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Analysis of composite endpoints with component-wise censoring in the presence of differential visit schedules.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Differential frequency in imaging-based outcome measurement: Bias in real-world oncology comparative-effectiveness studies.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
- Assessment-Schedule Matching in Unanchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Progression-Free Survival in Cancer Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Appropriate statistical methods are available to handle biases encountered in blinded, independent, central review (BICR) determined progression-free survival.Journal of hospital management and health policy · 2019Article
- Quantifying the association between progression-free survival and overall survival in oncology trials using Kendall's τ.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Tumor Size and Overall Survival in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2019Article
- ESTIMATING AND COMPARING CANCER PROGRESSION RISKS UNDER VARYING SURVEILLANCE PROTOCOLS.The annals of applied statistics · 2018Article
- Sieve estimation in a Markov illness-death process under dual censoring.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Bias in progression-free survival analysis due to intermittent assessment of progression.Statistics in medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer clinical trials are routinely designed to assess the effect of treatment on disease progression and death, often in terms of a composite endpoint called progression-free survival. When progression status is known only at periodic assessment times, the progression time is interval censored, and complications arise in the analysis of progression-free survival. Despite the advances in methods for dealing with interval-censored data, naive methods such as right-endpoint imputation are widely adopted in this setting. We examine the asymptotic and empirical properties of estimators of the marginal progression-free survival functions and associated treatment effects under this scheme. Specifically, we explore the determinants of the asymptotic bias and point out that there is typically a loss in power of tests for treatment effects.
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.