ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Ensuring Quality and Interpretability of Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time-to-event endpoints, such as progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), are critical in assessing therapeutic efficacy in oncology drug development. However, their quality and interpretability are frequently challenged by a range of factors, from protocol design and intercurrent events (ICE) to inconsistent data collection and missing follow-up data. These methodological and operational complexities can obscure the true treatment effect. Discontinuation of study treatment, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, lost to follow-up and withdrawal of consent can introduce significant bias, limiting the robustness of survival endpoints and complicating regulatory decision making. Adopting a prospective ICH E9(R1) estimand framework helps mitigate risks associated with data collection, analysis methodology and interpretability. This facilitates clearer discussions with regulators and stakeholders. Although both the FDA guidance on oncology endpoints and the EMA guideline on anticancer medicinal product evaluation outline key principles in evaluating PFS and OS endpoints, integration of ICH E9(R1) offers a harmonized strategy that is important for the design and conduct of randomized late phase oncology clinical trials. In this article, we investigate the quality and interpretability of the endpoints of PFS and OS according to the ICH E9(R1) framework and present some practical recommendations for designing and conducting robust oncology clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40762767What 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.