SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2018
Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 11 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Joint modeling of progression-free survival and patient-reported outcomes to evaluate the association between disease progression and symptoms among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Oncological and Survival Endpoints in Cancer Cachexia Clinical Trials: Systematic Review 6 of the Cachexia Endpoints Series.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Pooled it
- Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome domains in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials and association with survival outcomes.Annals of hematology · 2024Pooled it
- Breast cancer drugs: FDA approval, development time, efficacy, clinical benefits, innovation, trials, endpoints, quality of life, value, and price.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Pooled it
- Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.Targeted oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Analysis of phase III clinical trials in metastatic NSCLC to assess the correlation between QoL results and survival outcomes.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology.JAMA oncology · 2021Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Common sense oncology values to action: a patient-led framework for randomized clinical trial design.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant in Epithelial Cancers: Mechanisms, Model Systems, and Translational Opportunities.Cancers · 2026Review
- Effects of Dietary Interventions on Nutritional Status in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Review
- Oncology with common sense: beyond biologistic and pharmacological models.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life. Data Sources: For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016. Study Selection: Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions. Main Outcome and Measure: The association between PFS duration and HRQoL. Results: Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were -0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, -0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was -0.20 (95% CI, -0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, -0.05 to 1.60). Conclusions and Relevance: We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.
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.