In the End What Matters Most? A Review of Clinical Endpoints in Advanced Breast Cancer

Abstract

Abstract Many agents are being studied for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), yet few studies have demonstrated longer overall survival (OS), the primary measure of clinical benefit in MBC. This paper examines the key endpoints in clinical trials and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of drugs for MBC. PubMed was searched (1980 to October 2009) for reports of phase III trials investigating chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy agents in MBC. FDA approval histories (1996–2009) for cytotoxic and biological agents indicated for MBC were reviewed. Of the 73 phase III MBC trials reviewed, a strikingly small proportion of trials demonstrated a gain in OS duration (12%, n = 9). OS gains were less frequently noted in first-line trials (8%) than in trials of second-line plus other lines of therapy (22%). Few trials were designed with the capacity to detect OS effects. Among 37 phase III trials conducted in the last 15 years, only three systemic therapies were approved for first-line use and nine were approved for use as second-line or other lines of therapy. Of these, only four were supported by results showing longer survival times. There is substantial discordance among the design and conduct of clinical trials, FDA drug approval, and the current view of OS as the ultimate measure of clinical benefit. There is an urgent need to reassess standards for clinical benefit in MBC and to establish guidelines for study design and conduct and drug approval. In the end, what matters most is ensuring rapid access to safe and effective oncology treatments.