Progression-free survival in oncology: caveat emptor!

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

20 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Overall survival (OS) is the undisputed gold standard efficacy end-point in cancer drug trials. It is with growing concern that we observe how progression-free survival (PFS) gains ground as surrogate end-point in its place. PFS has appeal because it is resource-efficient, but it has severe shortcomings. Our concern is that uncritical use of PFS will harm the evidence-based evaluation of cancer drugs when considering them for standard use in publicly financed health care systems. PFS is only valid as a surrogate end-point for OS if it correlates strongly with OS and if the cancer drug being investigated has the same effect on PFS and OS such that effects on one predict effects on the other. The latter might be less obvious than the former but is no less critical. Research indicates that in a majority of cases, correlation between surrogate end-points and OS is of medium strength or lower. PFS is therefore unreliable as a surrogate for OS. We do not find it justified to use PFS as surrogate for OS without first having assessed its validity. Stakeholders who take part in evaluating cancer drugs considered for standard use in a health care system must be particularly vigilant about this issue to minimize the risk of introducing cancer drugs that have an unacceptable cost-risk-benefit profile.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBasic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology
Vol/bind124
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)240-244
ISSN1742-7835
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1. mar. 2019

Fingeraftryk

Oncology
Disease-Free Survival
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Health care
Neoplasms
Delivery of Health Care
Personal Autonomy
Drug Evaluation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs
Research

Bibliografisk note

© 2018 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).

Citer dette

@article{20bf50a4647442d2990bf6a9b9c589a4,
title = "Progression-free survival in oncology: caveat emptor!",
abstract = "Overall survival (OS) is the undisputed gold standard efficacy end-point in cancer drug trials. It is with growing concern that we observe how progression-free survival (PFS) gains ground as surrogate end-point in its place. PFS has appeal because it is resource-efficient, but it has severe shortcomings. Our concern is that uncritical use of PFS will harm the evidence-based evaluation of cancer drugs when considering them for standard use in publicly financed health care systems. PFS is only valid as a surrogate end-point for OS if it correlates strongly with OS and if the cancer drug being investigated has the same effect on PFS and OS such that effects on one predict effects on the other. The latter might be less obvious than the former but is no less critical. Research indicates that in a majority of cases, correlation between surrogate end-points and OS is of medium strength or lower. PFS is therefore unreliable as a surrogate for OS. We do not find it justified to use PFS as surrogate for OS without first having assessed its validity. Stakeholders who take part in evaluating cancer drugs considered for standard use in a health care system must be particularly vigilant about this issue to minimize the risk of introducing cancer drugs that have an unacceptable cost-risk-benefit profile.",
keywords = "cancer drugs, oncology, overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life, surrogate end-point",
author = "Bergmann, {Troels K} and Christensen, {Mette Marie H} and Daniel Henriksen and Haastrup, {Maija Bruun} and Per Damkier",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bcpt.13168",
language = "English",
volume = "124",
pages = "240--244",
journal = "Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology",
issn = "1742-7835",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Progression-free survival in oncology : caveat emptor! / Bergmann, Troels K; Christensen, Mette Marie H; Henriksen, Daniel; Haastrup, Maija Bruun; Damkier, Per.

I: Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, Bind 124, Nr. 3, 01.03.2019, s. 240-244.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Progression-free survival in oncology

T2 - caveat emptor!

AU - Bergmann, Troels K

AU - Christensen, Mette Marie H

AU - Henriksen, Daniel

AU - Haastrup, Maija Bruun

AU - Damkier, Per

N1 - © 2018 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Overall survival (OS) is the undisputed gold standard efficacy end-point in cancer drug trials. It is with growing concern that we observe how progression-free survival (PFS) gains ground as surrogate end-point in its place. PFS has appeal because it is resource-efficient, but it has severe shortcomings. Our concern is that uncritical use of PFS will harm the evidence-based evaluation of cancer drugs when considering them for standard use in publicly financed health care systems. PFS is only valid as a surrogate end-point for OS if it correlates strongly with OS and if the cancer drug being investigated has the same effect on PFS and OS such that effects on one predict effects on the other. The latter might be less obvious than the former but is no less critical. Research indicates that in a majority of cases, correlation between surrogate end-points and OS is of medium strength or lower. PFS is therefore unreliable as a surrogate for OS. We do not find it justified to use PFS as surrogate for OS without first having assessed its validity. Stakeholders who take part in evaluating cancer drugs considered for standard use in a health care system must be particularly vigilant about this issue to minimize the risk of introducing cancer drugs that have an unacceptable cost-risk-benefit profile.

AB - Overall survival (OS) is the undisputed gold standard efficacy end-point in cancer drug trials. It is with growing concern that we observe how progression-free survival (PFS) gains ground as surrogate end-point in its place. PFS has appeal because it is resource-efficient, but it has severe shortcomings. Our concern is that uncritical use of PFS will harm the evidence-based evaluation of cancer drugs when considering them for standard use in publicly financed health care systems. PFS is only valid as a surrogate end-point for OS if it correlates strongly with OS and if the cancer drug being investigated has the same effect on PFS and OS such that effects on one predict effects on the other. The latter might be less obvious than the former but is no less critical. Research indicates that in a majority of cases, correlation between surrogate end-points and OS is of medium strength or lower. PFS is therefore unreliable as a surrogate for OS. We do not find it justified to use PFS as surrogate for OS without first having assessed its validity. Stakeholders who take part in evaluating cancer drugs considered for standard use in a health care system must be particularly vigilant about this issue to minimize the risk of introducing cancer drugs that have an unacceptable cost-risk-benefit profile.

KW - cancer drugs

KW - oncology

KW - overall survival

KW - progression-free survival

KW - quality of life

KW - surrogate end-point

U2 - 10.1111/bcpt.13168

DO - 10.1111/bcpt.13168

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30417586

VL - 124

SP - 240

EP - 244

JO - Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology

JF - Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology

SN - 1742-7835

IS - 3

ER -