Paper detail

Surrogacy of progression free survival for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer studies: meta-analyses of published studies

Purpose: PFS is often used as a surrogate endpoint for OS in metastatic breast cancer studies. We have evaluated the association of treatment effect on PFS with significant HR$_{OS}$ (and how this association is affected by other factors) in published prospective metastatic breast cancer studies. Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed identified prospective metastatic breast cancer studies. Treatments effects on PFS were determined using hazard ratio (HR$_{PFS}$), increase in median PFS ($Δ$MED$_{PFS}$) and % increase in median PFS (%$Δ$MED$_{PFS}$). Diagnostic accuracy of PFS measures (HR$_{PFS}$, $Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ and %$Δ$MED$_{PFS}$) in predicting significant HR$_{OS}$ was assessed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and classification trees approach. Results: Seventy-three cases (i.e., treatment to control comparisons) from 64 individual publications were identified for the analyses. Of these, 16 cases reported significant treatment effect on HR$_{OS}$ at 5% level of significance. Median number of deaths reported in these cases were 156. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for diagnostic measures as HR$_{PFS}$, $Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ and %$Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ were 0.69, 0.70 and 0.75, respectively. Classification tree results identified %$Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ and number of deaths as diagnostic measure for significant HR$_{OS}$. Only 7.9\% (3/39) cases with $Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ shorter than 48.27\% reported significant HR$_{OS}$. There were 7 cases with $Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ of 48.27\% or more and number of deaths reported as 227 or more -- of these 5 cases reported significant HR$_{OS}$. Conclusion: %$Δ$MED$_{PFS}$ was found as better diagnostic measure for significant HR$_{OS}$. Our analysis results also suggest that consideration of total number of deaths may further improve its diagnostic performance.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.