ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
The use of endpoints in phase 3 randomized controlled trials in metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo assess the use of endpoints in phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in metastatic breast cancer (BC).
methodsEligible RCTs were searched for in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The impact of selected variables on the use of the primary endpoints was determined with multivariable logistic regression.
resultsThe study included 267 phase 3 RCTs of systemic treatments, started between 2008 and 2025. The most common primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; n = 228; 85.4%). It was less likely in trials of chemotherapy relative to conjugates (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.10; 95% CI 0.01-0.61; p = 0.01). Among the PFS-based trials with available results (n = 107), median improvement in PFS was 2.8 months (interquartile [IQ] range, 1.35-5.75). 185/228 (81.1%) trials with PFS as the primary endpoint utilized overall survival (OS) as a secondary endpoint and 108/228 (47.4%) had quality of life (QoL) as a secondary endpoint. OS was used as the primary endpoint in only 35 trials (13.1%). It was more likely in trials enrolling patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC) relative to HER2+ BC (aOR, 5.54; 95% CI 1.57-21.93; p = 0.01). However, line of treatment did not have any statistically significant impact on the odds of OS (p > 0.05)
conclusionOS as the primary endpoint has been almost completely replaced by PFS. Improvements in PFS are often modest. OS should be used as the primary endpoint more frequently, especially in TNBC and trials of later-line treatments. Moreover more trials should include QoL as a secondary endpoint.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41915264What 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.