ArticleCancer management and research2018
Can contemporary trials of chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer detect overall survival benefit?
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2019Trial
- Can contemporary trials of chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer detect overall survival benefit?Cancer management and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough several trials have demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), overall survival (OS) benefit is elusive. We calculated required sample sizes to power for OS using published data from recent mBC trials. PATIENTS AND
methodsRandomized superiority trials of first-line chemotherapy/targeted therapy for HER2-negative mBC including >150 patients, meeting the primary efficacy objective, and published in 2000-2018 were identified. The sample sizes required to power for PFS and OS were calculated retrospectively for each trial using observed results and study/recruitment follow-up durations (α=0.05, two-sided log-rank test, 80% power), and summarized as a factor (x) relative to actual sample size.
resultsNine of 13 identified trials reported all information required for retrospective sample size calculation. Six had sample sizes larger than required to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit but all would have required larger sample sizes to demonstrate significant OS benefit with the observed results. In ten trials, the required sample size was ≥5-fold larger to power for OS than PFS.
conclusionDesigning trials to test potential new treatments for HER2-negative mBC is challenging, requiring a balance of regulatory acceptability, feasibility, and realistic medical assumptions to calculate sample sizes. Powering for OS is particularly difficult in heterogeneous populations with long postprogression survival, potential crossover, heterogeneous poststudy therapy, and evolving treatment standards. Validated surrogate endpoints are critical. Ongoing trials of cancer immunotherapy (new mode of action) in triple-negative mBC (more homogeneous, shorter OS and postprogression survival, fewer treatment options) may show a new pattern.
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.