ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Liposomal drug delivery for lung cancer therapy: progress, challenges, and future perspectives.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) face a poor prognosis and have limited treatment options, which has prompted the initiation of clinical trials. Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard endpoint in clinical trials, reflects the benefits patients derive from interventions. Nevertheless, utilizing OS as an endpoint in clinical trials requires large sample sizes and greater financial supports than using progression-free survival (PFS). This study aims to evaluate whether PFS can serve as a surrogate endpoint for OS, thereby conserving human and financial resources in SCLC clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Library) and international conferences up to January 1, 2025. Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS, as well as PFS and OS rates, were collected. Weighted linear regression analyses were performed to assess the correlation between PFS benefit and OS benefit, with subgroup analyses based on treatment lines and the trial phase. Results: A total of 43 RCTs involving 15,119 patients with SCLC were analyzed, including 28 trials focusing on treatment-naïve patients and 15 trials evaluating non-first-line therapies. PFS exhibited a moderate correlation with OS benefit in treatment-naïve patients, particularly for those receiving first-line immunotherapy. Moreover, the 1-year PFS rate showed a strong association with the 1.5-year OS in first-line trials and 2-year OS in subsequent-line trials. No significant correlation was observed in patients who had received prior treatments. Conclusions: This study supports the utilization of PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in clinical trials involving treatment-naïve SCLC patients, especially receiving first-line immunotherapy. This finding can enhance the efficiency of clinical trial design and facilitate the evaluation of novel therapeutic interventions in this challenging patient population.
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.