P A Tang1, G R Pond, E X Chen. 1. Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the variability in assessment between investigators (INV) and independent review committees (IRC) for response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: Phase III trials reporting INV and IRC assessments were identified. The difference in end point assessment (IRC - INV) across all study arms was determined. A random-effects model was used to calculate the mean difference between INV and IRC RR as well as PFS. Differences in estimated benefits of treatment (experimental - control) between IRC and INV were determined. RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included (18 RR, 8 PFS). The estimated mean difference between IRC- and INV-determined RR was 4.57% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95% to 6.19%]. For median PFS, the estimated mean difference was -0.19 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.29) months. The difference in estimated benefits of treatment ranged from -7.0% to 7.2% for RR and -2.0 to +2.4 months for PFS; there was no evidence of systemic bias by INV (P = 0.54 for RR and 0.31 for PFS). CONCLUSION: INV overestimate RR compared with IRC. Given the variability in assessing RR and PFS between INV and IRC, an IRC should be considered if the primary end point is on the basis of assessments of changes in tumor lesions.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the variability in assessment between investigators (INV) and independent review committees (IRC) for response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: Phase III trials reporting INV and IRC assessments were identified. The difference in end point assessment (IRC - INV) across all study arms was determined. A random-effects model was used to calculate the mean difference between INV and IRC RR as well as PFS. Differences in estimated benefits of treatment (experimental - control) between IRC and INV were determined. RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included (18 RR, 8 PFS). The estimated mean difference between IRC- and INV-determined RR was 4.57% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95% to 6.19%]. For median PFS, the estimated mean difference was -0.19 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.29) months. The difference in estimated benefits of treatment ranged from -7.0% to 7.2% for RR and -2.0 to +2.4 months for PFS; there was no evidence of systemic bias by INV (P = 0.54 for RR and 0.31 for PFS). CONCLUSION: INV overestimate RR compared with IRC. Given the variability in assessing RR and PFS between INV and IRC, an IRC should be considered if the primary end point is on the basis of assessments of changes in tumor lesions.
Authors: Pier Luigi Zinzani; Lionel Karlin; John Radford; Dolores Caballero; Paul Fields; Martine E D Chamuleau; Francesco d'Amore; Corinne Haioun; Catherine Thieblemont; Eva González-Barca; Carlos Grande García; Peter W Johnson; Gustaaf W van Imhoff; Thomas Ng; Karen Dwyer; Franck Morschhauser Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: John M Kirkwood; Lars Bastholt; Caroline Robert; Jeff Sosman; James Larkin; Peter Hersey; Mark Middleton; Mireille Cantarini; Victoria Zazulina; Karin Kemsley; Reinhard Dummer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Girish Dhall; Sharon H O'Neil; Lingyun Ji; Kelley Haley; Ashley M Whitaker; Marvin D Nelson; Floyd Gilles; Sharon L Gardner; Jeffrey C Allen; Albert S Cornelius; Kamnesh Pradhan; James H Garvin; Randal S Olshefski; Juliette Hukin; Melanie Comito; Stewart Goldman; Mark P Atlas; Andrew W Walter; Stephen Sands; Richard Sposto; Jonathan L Finlay Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Katherine M Krajewski; Mizuki Nishino; Yoko Franchetti; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gottfried E Konecny; Amit M Oza; Anna V Tinker; Ana Oaknin; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Carol Aghajanian; Robert L Coleman; David M O'Malley; Alexandra Leary; Lee-May Chen; Diane Provencher; Ling Ma; James D Brenton; Cesar Castro; Michelle Green; Andrew D Simmons; Jeri Beltman; Thomas Harding; Kevin K Lin; Sandra Goble; Lara Maloney; Rebecca S Kristeleit; Iain A McNeish; Elizabeth M Swisher; Jim J Xiao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 5.304