If the title is correct, an article in the November 10 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology shows that many randomized trials in oncology are improperly designed and many drugs used in oncology have been approved based on the wrong end point.
John M. Burke, MD
Hematologist and Medical Oncologist
Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers
Associate Chair
US Oncology Hematology Research Program
Aurora, CO
The November 10 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology contains a Comments and Controversies article that caught my attention. Written by Christopher Booth, MD, and colleagues, the article is provocatively titled “Progression-Free Survival [PFS] Should Not Be Used as a Primary End Point for Registration of Anticancer Drugs.” If the title is correct, then many randomized trials in oncology are improperly designed and many drugs used in oncology have been approved based on the wrong end point.
In the paper, the authors outline several limitations of PFS as an end point for oncology drugs, including lack of consistent surrogacy for overall survival (OS), bias, and error inherent in measuring tumor sizes; arbitrariness in the definition of progression; and the dependency of PFS on the frequency of imaging. Perhaps the most important limitation in the PFS end point is something that I knew little about called informative censoring. This is the censoring of patients who drop out of the trial before undergoing a response assessment. For example, if a patient drops out of a trial prior to response assessment because of toxicities of treatment, that patient is censored from the PFS curve and a PFS event is not recorded. Thus, if 20% of patients in an experimental arm of a trial experience toxic effects forcing discontinuation of treatment prior to response assessment, then the PFS will be based on an analysis of 80% of patients who could tolerate the treatment. In a randomized trial in which the design is standard therapy vs standard therapy plus drug X, informative censoring will lead to a bias in favor of the investigational arm.
Potential methods for mitigating this include performing a sensitivity analysis in which it is assumed that patients who drop out of trials did so for progression; analyzing time-to-treatment-failure curves, which are not affected by informative censoring; and placing PFS results in the context of discontinuation rates, toxicities of regimens, quality-of-life assessments, and OS. The authors argue that a better way to design randomized trials in oncology would be to designate OS as the primary end point and to make PFS a secondary end point.
It's worth keeping the limitations of the PFS end point in mind when we observe data. The 2 ways in which we physicians can help our patients is to make them live longer or improve their quality of life. PFS does not measure either of these outcomes, is more subject to bias and error than OS, and does not incorporate any measure of harm. However, safety, discontinuation rate, quality of life, and OS end points incorporate measures of harm and are critical when analyzing the risk-benefit ratios of the treatments we study.
Leon-Ferre Explores Targeting of PIK3CA Alterations in ER+ Breast Cancer
July 24th 2024During a live Community Case Forum event in partnership with the Minnesota Society of Clinical Oncology, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, MD, discussed drugs targeting PIK3CA alterations in patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer.
Read More
Roundtable Roundup: Treatment for Metastatic pMMR Endometrial Cancer
July 23rd 2024In separate, live virtual events, Michael J. Birrer, MD, PhD, and Jubilee Brown, MD, surveyed participants on the treatment of a postmenopausal woman with stage IVA endometrial cancer after first-line chemotherapy.
Read More
George Explores Impact of Risk Status With Cabozantinib/Nivolumab in Advanced RCC
July 19th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Daniel George, MD, discussed the results of the CheckMate 9ER trial across favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
Read More
Depth of Response With Quadruplet Regimens Considered in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma
July 18th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Timothy Schmidt, MD, and participants discussed treatment selection for a 54-year-old patient with transplant eligible R-ISS stage 2/R2-ISS stage 3 IgG-κ myeloma.
Read More
Rossetti Reviews Myelofibrosis Risk Stratification and Outcome Data for Pacritinib
July 17th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, James M. Rossetti, DO, discussed the role of risk scoring and stratification tools and treatment for a patient with declining hemoglobin and platelet counts due to primary myelofibrosis.
Read More