Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647347›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2025

Definitions, measurement, and reporting of progression-free survival in randomized clinical trials and observational studies of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy: a scoping review.

M V Verschueren, V P Tassopoulou, R Visscher, J Schuurkamp, B J M Peters, M Koopman, E M W van de Garde, A C G Egberts, L T Bloem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

9 authors.

M V VerschuerenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht/Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
V P TassopoulouDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R VisscherDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J SchuurkampDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
B J M PetersDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht/Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
M KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E M W van de GardeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht/Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
A C G EgbertsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L T BloemDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence from observational studies is increasingly used in oncology to complement evidence from clinical trials. Commonly used endpoints to evaluate oncology medicines are overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). However, comparing PFS across observational studies and with clinical trials can be challenging due to differences in its definition and measurement. This scoping review investigated how PFS was defined, measured, and reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy. Materials and methods: This scoping review included RCTs and observational studies that measured PFS in advanced NSCLC patients treated with immunotherapy. ASReview, an open-source artificial intelligence-assisted tool, was used to screen and prioritize relevant studies from records identified from PubMed and Embase between 2012 and 2023. Information on study characteristics, PFS definitions, and measurements was extracted. Results: Forty RCTs and 144 observational studies were included. Most RCTs were conducted across multiple continents (70%), while most observational studies were conducted in Asia (62%). In contrast to RCTs, many observational studies lacked reporting on the end date of PFS measurement (69%), the type of radiological imaging (59%), and the imaging reviewer (78%). For observational studies that did report on PFS definitions and measurements, these often differed from those in RCTs, particularly regarding event definitions, the start and stop dates for PFS measurement, and tumor assessment schedules. Conclusions: In contrast to RCTs, observational studies often lack reporting on PFS definitions and measurements, and if reported, they differ across observational studies and between them and RCTs. Since observational studies are important for complementing evidence, aligning PFS definition and measurement criteria with those used in RCTs, along with detailed reporting, is needed. However, some variability in PFS measurement characteristics is unavoidable, and therefore, PFS estimates from observational studies should be interpreted critically and carefully.

Indexed as

advanced non-small-cell lung cancerimmunotherapyobservational studiesprogression-free survivalrandomized clinical trialsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41647347
PMCPMC12836502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.