Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28617920›Full record

SynthesisJAMA oncology2017

Milestone Analyses of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Targeted Therapy, and Conventional Therapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Trials: A Meta-analysis.

Gideon M Blumenthal, Lijun Zhang, Hui Zhang, Dickran Kazandjian, Sean Khozin, Shenghui Tang, Kirsten Goldberg, Rajeshwari Sridhara, Patricia Keegan, Richard Pazdur

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Deciphering radiological stable disease to immune checkpoint inhibitors.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Challenges in the measurement and valuation of oncological treatments in Spain: recommendations and call to action.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Gideon M BlumenthalCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Lijun ZhangCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Hui ZhangCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Dickran KazandjianCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Sean KhozinCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Shenghui TangCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Kirsten GoldbergCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Rajeshwari SridharaCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Patricia KeeganCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.
Richard PazdurCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceNovel intermediate end points may be useful to detect signals of early activity and prioritize new therapies to treat patients with advanced malignant neoplasms, including metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).

objectiveTo explore milestone rate, a proposed intermediate end point for immunotherapy trials. DATA SOURCES: Trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration with more than 150 patients and in which the intention-to-treat population was assessed were identified. STUDY SELECTION: An initial meta-analysis identified 14 randomized clinical trials for treatment of mNSCLC with active controls submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2013. An additional 11 randomized clinical trials submitted from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators abstracted data and pooled data to compare trial-level milestone ratios with conventional end points. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Trial-level milestone ratios for milestone rates were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) within 6 months, 9-month progression-free survival (PFS), 9-month overall survival (OS), and 12-month OS. A weighted linear regression model evaluated associations between milestone ratios and hazard ratios (HRs). Experimental and control arms of trials testing immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and other trials were pooled to compare Kaplan-Meier survival estimates in the 3 therapeutic classes.

resultsA total of 20 013 unique patients (65.4% male and 34.6% female; mean age, 60 [range, 18-92] years) with advanced lung cancer were identified in 25 unique trials. A moderate association was observed between 12-month OS milestone ratio and OS HR (R2 = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91) and 9-month OS milestone ratio and OS HR (R2 = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82). No associations were observed between 9-month PFS milestone ratio and OS HR (R2 = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03-0.49) or 6-month ORR and OS HR (R2 = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.31). The aggregated Kaplan-Meier analysis of immunotherapy trials vs chemotherapy revealed an OS HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) and PFS HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.89). Targeted therapy trials vs chemotherapy had an OS HR of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19) and PFS HR of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.42-0.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This analysis of milestone rates suggests a moderate association between OS milestones at 12 or 9 months and OS HR but not 9-month PFS or 6-month ORR milestones and OS HR. Although OS at 12 months had the strongest association with OS HR, it may not be the optimal time for future trials, which will increasingly have immunotherapy as the control, deploy new biomarker-enrichment strategies, and likely enroll patients with longer survival. Milestone rates may be useful as a complementary tool to summarize or interpret trial results or as a secondary end point in exploratory studies.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungImmunotherapyLung NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28617920
PMCPMC5824222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.