INTRODUCTION: In randomised phase III cancer clinical trials, the most objectively defined and only validated time-to-event endpoint is overall survival (OS). The appearance of new types of treatments and the multiplication of lines of treatment have resulted in the use of surrogate endpoints for overall survival such as progression-free survival (PFS), or time-to-treatment failure. Their development is strongly influenced by the necessity of reducing clinical trial duration, cost and number of patients. However, while these endpoints are frequently used, they are often poorly defined and definitions can differ between trials which may limit their use as primary endpoints. Moreover, this variability of definitions can impact on the trial's results by affecting estimation of treatments' effects. The aim of the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project is to provide recommendations for standardised definitions of time-to-event endpoints in randomised cancer clinical trials. METHODS: We will use a formal consensus methodology based on experts' opinions which will be obtained in a systematic manner. RESULTS: Definitions will be independently developed for several cancer sites, including pancreatic, breast, head and neck and colon cancer, as well as sarcomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). DISCUSSION: The DATECAN project should lead to the elaboration of recommendations that can then be used as guidelines by researchers participating in clinical trials. This process should lead to a standardisation of the definitions of commonly used time-to-event endpoints, enabling appropriate comparisons of future trials' results.
INTRODUCTION: In randomised phase III cancer clinical trials, the most objectively defined and only validated time-to-event endpoint is overall survival (OS). The appearance of new types of treatments and the multiplication of lines of treatment have resulted in the use of surrogate endpoints for overall survival such as progression-free survival (PFS), or time-to-treatment failure. Their development is strongly influenced by the necessity of reducing clinical trial duration, cost and number of patients. However, while these endpoints are frequently used, they are often poorly defined and definitions can differ between trials which may limit their use as primary endpoints. Moreover, this variability of definitions can impact on the trial's results by affecting estimation of treatments' effects. The aim of the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project is to provide recommendations for standardised definitions of time-to-event endpoints in randomised cancer clinical trials. METHODS: We will use a formal consensus methodology based on experts' opinions which will be obtained in a systematic manner. RESULTS: Definitions will be independently developed for several cancer sites, including pancreatic, breast, head and neck and colon cancer, as well as sarcomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). DISCUSSION: The DATECAN project should lead to the elaboration of recommendations that can then be used as guidelines by researchers participating in clinical trials. This process should lead to a standardisation of the definitions of commonly used time-to-event endpoints, enabling appropriate comparisons of future trials' results.
Authors: Martine Moossdorff; Lori M van Roozendaal; Luc J A Strobbe; Stefan Aebi; David A Cameron; J Michael Dixon; Armando E Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty; Brigid E Hickey; Clifford A Hudis; V Suzanne Klimberg; Bogda Koczwara; Thorsten Kühn; Marc E Lippman; Anthony Lucci; Martine Piccart; Benjamin D Smith; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Kimberly J Van Zee; Jan B Vermorken; Giuseppe Viale; Adri C Voogd; Irene L Wapnir; Julia R White; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Romain Cohen; Dewi Vernerey; Carine Bellera; Aurélia Meurisse; Julie Henriques; Xavier Paoletti; Benoît Rousseau; Steven Alberts; Thomas Aparicio; Ioannis Boukovinas; Sharlene Gill; Richard M Goldberg; Axel Grothey; Tetsuya Hamaguchi; Timothy Iveson; Rachel Kerr; Roberto Labianca; Sara Lonardi; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; James Paul; Cornelis J A Punt; Leonard Saltz; Marck P Saunders; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Manish Shah; Alberto Sobrero; Ioannis Souglakos; Julien Taieb; Atsuo Takashima; Anna Dorothea Wagner; Marc Ychou; Franck Bonnetain; Sophie Gourgou; Takayuki Yoshino; Greg Yothers; Aimery de Gramont; Qian Shi; Thierry André Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Benoist Chibaudel; Roger Lacave; Marine Lefevre; Patrick Soussan; Martine Antoine; Sophie Périé; Jean-Baptiste Belloc; Alain Banal; Sébastien Albert; Frédéric Chabolle; Philippe Céruse; Philippe Baril; Michel Gatineau; Martin Housset; Rachel Moukoko; Magdalena Benetkiewicz; Aimery de Gramont; Franck Bonnetain; Jean Lacau St Guily Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Justyna Bartoszko; Leon Vorobeichik; Mohandas Jayarajah; Keyvan Karkouti; Andrew A Klein; Andre Lamy; C David Mazer; Mike Murphy; Toby Richards; Marina Englesakis; Paul S Myles; Duminda N Wijeysundera Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Emmanouil Fokas; Ane Appelt; Alexandra Gilbert; David Sebag-Montefiore; Claus Rödel; Robert Glynne-Jones; Geerard Beets; Rodrigo Perez; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Eric Rullier; J Joshua Smith; Corrie Marijnen; Femke P Peters; Maxine van der Valk; Regina Beets-Tan; Arthur S Myint; Jean-Pierre Gerard; Simon P Bach; Michael Ghadimi; Ralf D Hofheinz; Krzysztof Bujko; Cihan Gani; Karin Haustermans; Bruce D Minsky; Ethan Ludmir; Nicholas P West; Maria A Gambacorta; Vincenzo Valentini; Marc Buyse; Andrew G Renehan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Lilian Schwarz; Dewi Vernerey; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Jean-Jacques Tuech; Fabienne Portales; Pierre Michel; Antonio Sa Cunha Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 4.430