PURPOSE: Progression free survival (PFS) is increasingly used as a primary end-point in oncology clinical trials. This paper provides observations and recommendations on the use of a blinded independent central review (BICR) for progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The findings and recommendations are based on extensive simulations and a meta-analysis based on 27 previously conducted randomised phase III trials with BICR performed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) sponsored PFS Independent Review Working Group. RESULTS: Results of the meta-analysis demonstrate a strong correlation between LE and BICR estimates of treatment effect (R=0.947). Further, differences between treatment groups in discordance rates predict the differences between LE and BICR estimates of treatment effect supporting the use of a sample-based BICR on a subgroup of patients. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrates that local evaluation (LE) provides a reliable estimate of the treatment effect with little evidence for systematic evaluation bias. Therefore, when a trial is blinded or a large effect on PFS is observed a BICR may not be warranted. When a BICR is warranted, a sample-based BICR may provide a reduction in operational complexity without compromising the credibility of trial results. While for large trials that are not adequately blinded a sample-based BICR may be recommended. A full BICR should be considered in the case of smaller trials or in situations in which there is a particular need to increase the confidence in the LE results.
PURPOSE: Progression free survival (PFS) is increasingly used as a primary end-point in oncology clinical trials. This paper provides observations and recommendations on the use of a blinded independent central review (BICR) for progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The findings and recommendations are based on extensive simulations and a meta-analysis based on 27 previously conducted randomised phase III trials with BICR performed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) sponsored PFS Independent Review Working Group. RESULTS: Results of the meta-analysis demonstrate a strong correlation between LE and BICR estimates of treatment effect (R=0.947). Further, differences between treatment groups in discordance rates predict the differences between LE and BICR estimates of treatment effect supporting the use of a sample-based BICR on a subgroup of patients. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrates that local evaluation (LE) provides a reliable estimate of the treatment effect with little evidence for systematic evaluation bias. Therefore, when a trial is blinded or a large effect on PFS is observed a BICR may not be warranted. When a BICR is warranted, a sample-based BICR may provide a reduction in operational complexity without compromising the credibility of trial results. While for large trials that are not adequately blinded a sample-based BICR may be recommended. A full BICR should be considered in the case of smaller trials or in situations in which there is a particular need to increase the confidence in the LE results.
Authors: Michael S Gee; Mostafa Atri; Andriy I Bandos; Robert S Mannel; Michael A Gold; Susanna I Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ajay K Gopal; Barbara Pro; Joseph M Connors; Anas Younes; Andreas Engert; Andrei R Shustov; Xuedong Chi; Emily K Larsen; Dana A Kennedy; Eric L Sievers Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Robert A Burger; Mark F Brady; Joon Rhee; Mika A Sovak; George Kong; Hoa P Nguyen; Michael A Bookman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Viktor Grünwald; Rana R McKay; Katherine M Krajewski; Daniel Kalanovic; Xun Lin; Julia J Perkins; Ronit Simantov; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lori E Dodd; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Wenjuan Gu; Jeffrey S Abrams; William D Bushnell; Renzo Canetta; James H Doroshow; Robert J Gray; Rajeshwari Sridhara Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 2.486