Abstract
Abstract
Background
Overall survival is the “gold standard” endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered.
Methods
Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer.
Results
One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching).
Discussion
Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference51 articles.
1. Fontrier AM, Visintin E, Kanavos P. Similarities and differences in health technology assessment systems and implications for coverage decisions: evidence from 32 countries. Pharmacoecon Open. 2022;6(315–328):20211129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00311-5.
2. EMA. ICH topic E9 statistical principles for clinical trials, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e-9-statistical-principles-clinical-trials-step-5_en.pdf (1998, Accessed 6 Sept 2022).
3. Morris TP, Jarvis CI, Cragg W, et al. Proposals on Kaplan-Meier plots in medical research and a survey of stakeholder views: KMunicate. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030215. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030215.
4. FDA. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics guidance for industry, https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download (2018, Accessed 6 Sept 2022).
5. Latimer NR, Abrams KR. NICE DSU technical support document 16: adjusting survival time estimates in the presence of treatment switching. 2014.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献