Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26476079›Full record

ReviewNeoplasia (New York, N.Y.)2015

Confirmatory Trials in the Evaluation of Anticancer Medicinal Products in Man--PFS2: A Measure of Therapeutic Action-At-A-Distance.

Bryan Oronsky, Corey A Carter, Tony R Reid, Jan Scicinski, Arnold Oronsky, Michelle Lybeck, Scott Caroen, Meaghan Stirn, Neil Oronsky, Peter Langecker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Bryan OronskyEpicentRx, Mountain View, CA, USA. Electronic address: boronsky@epicentrx.com.
Corey A CarterWalter Reed Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Tony R ReidUniversity of California San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA, USA.
Jan ScicinskiEpicentRx, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Arnold OronskyInterWest Partners, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Michelle LybeckEpicentRx, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Scott CaroenEpicentRx, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Meaghan StirnEpicentRx, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Neil OronskyCFLS, San Jose, CA, USA.
Peter LangeckerLos Gatos Pharmaceuticals, Los Gatos, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overall survival (OS) has emerged as the definitive regulatory "be-all, end-all" for the demonstration of benefit in cancer clinical trials. The reason and the rationale for why this is so are easily appreciated: literally a "test of time," OS is a seemingly unambiguous, agenda-free end point, independent of bias-prone variables such as the frequency and methods of assessment, clinical evaluation, and the definition of progression. However, by general consensus, OS is an imperfect end point for several reasons: First, it may often be impractical because of the length, cost, and the size of clinical trials. Second, OS captures the impact of subsequent therapies, both beneficial (i.e., active) and detrimental, on survival but it does not take into account the contribution of subsequent therapies by treatment arm; the postprogression period is treated as an unknown black box (no information about the potential influence of next-line therapies on the outcome) under the implicit assumption that the clinical trial treatment is the only clinical variable that matters: what OS explicitly measures is the destination, that is, the elapsed time between the date of randomization (or intention to treat) and the date of death, not the journey, that is, what transpires in-between. In long-term maintenance strategies, patients receive treatment in temporally separated but mutually interdependent and causally linked sequences that exert a "field of influence" akin to action-at-a-distance forces like gravity, electricity, and magnetism on both the tumor and each other. Hence, in this setting, a new end point, PFS2, is required to measure this field of influence. This article reviews the definition and use in clinical trials of PFS2 and makes the case for its potential applicability as a preferred end point to measure the mutual influence of individual regimens in long-term maintenance strategies with resensitizing agents in particular.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicHumansNeoplasmsSurvival RateAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID26476079
PMCPMC4611069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.