PURPOSE: Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. METHODS: A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. CONCLUSION: The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.
PURPOSE: Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. METHODS: A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. CONCLUSION: The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Angela DeMichele; Lisa Carey; Sarah E Davis; Meredith Buxton; Cliff Hudis; Joe W Gray; Charles Perou; Christina Yau; Chad Livasy; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Laura van 't Veer; Nola Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav; Sminil Mahajan; James C Yao; Brian P Hobbs; Donald A Berry; Rebecca D Pentz; Alda Tam; Waun K Hong; Lee M Ellis; James Abbruzzese; Michael J Overman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eleftherios P Mamounas; Hanna Bandos; Barry C Lembersky; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Charles E Geyer; Priya Rastogi; Louis Fehrenbacher; Mark L Graham; Stephen K Chia; Adam M Brufsky; Janice M Walshe; Gamini S Soori; Shaker R Dakhil; Thomas E Seay; James L Wade; Edward C McCarron; Soonmyung Paik; Sandra M Swain; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David C Newitt; Sheye O Aliu; Neil Witcomb; Gal Sela; John Kornak; Laura Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: James N Ingle; Fang Xie; Matthew J Ellis; Paul E Goss; Lois E Shepherd; Judith-Anne W Chapman; Bingshu E Chen; Michiaki Kubo; Yoichi Furukawa; Yukihide Momozawa; Vered Stearns; Kathleen I Pritchard; Poulami Barman; Erin E Carlson; Matthew P Goetz; Richard M Weinshilboum; Krishna R Kalari; Liewei Wang Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Denise M Boudreau; Onchee Yu; Jessica Chubak; Heidi S Wirtz; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Monica Fujii; Diana S M Buist Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Hannah Y Wen; Melissa Krystel-Whittemore; Sujata Patil; Fresia Pareja; Zenica L Bowser; Maura N Dickler; Larry Norton; Monica Morrow; Clifford A Hudis; Edi Brogi Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lawrence N Shulman; Donald A Berry; Constance T Cirrincione; Heather P Becker; Edith A Perez; Ruth O'Regan; Silvana Martino; Charles L Shapiro; Charles J Schneider; Gretchen Kimmick; Harold J Burstein; Larry Norton; Hyman Muss; Clifford A Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 44.544