Long-term trends in glioblastoma survival: implications for historical control groups in clinical trials

Author:

Sheikh Shehryar1,Radivoyevitch Tom2,Barnholtz-Sloan Jill S3,Vogelbaum Michael4

Affiliation:

1. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, OH, USA

2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH, USA

3. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

4. Department of Neuro-Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundHistorical controls continue to be used in early-phase brain tumor trials. We aim to show that historical changes in survival trends for glioblastoma (GBM) call into question the use of noncontemporary controls.MethodsWe analyzed data from 46 106 primary GBM cases from the SEER database (1998-2016). We performed trend analysis on survival outcomes (2-year survival probability, median survival, and hazard ratios) and patient characteristics (age, sex, resection extent, and treatment type).ResultsIn 2005-2016 (ie, the post–Stupp protocol era), fitting a parameter independently to each year, there was a demonstrable increase in median survival (R2 = 0.81, P < .001) and 2-year survival probability (R2 = 0.55, P = .006) for GBM. Trend analysis of the hazard ratio showed a significant time-dependent downward trend (R2 = 0.62, P = .002). When controlling, via multivariable Cox regression modeling, for age, sex, resection extent, and treatment type, there was a persistent downward trend in hazard ratios with increases in calendar time, especially in the most recent data.ConclusionContemporary GBM patients face a different overall hazard profile from their historical counterparts, which is evident in changes in measures of patient survival and parametric hazard modeling. Though there was a plateau in these measures before 2005 (pre–Stupp protocol), there is no evidence of a new plateau in recent years even when controlling for known prognostic factors (age, sex, resection extent, and treatment type), suggesting that it may be insufficient to match contemporary patients and noncontemporary controls on the basis of these factors.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Medicine (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3