BACKGROUND: The endpoints of progression-free survival (pfs) and time-to-progression (ttp) are frequently used to evaluate the clinical benefit of anticancer drugs. However, the surrogacy of those endpoints for overall survival (os) is not validated in all cancer settings. In the present study, we used a trial-based approach to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll). METHODS: The pico (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes) method was used to conduct a systematic review of the literature. The population consisted of patients with cll; the interventions and comparators were standard therapies for cll; and the outcomes were median pfs, ttp, and os. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full papers for eligibility and then extracted data from selected studies. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os. Subgroup correlation analyses were also conducted according to the characteristics of the selected studies (such as line of treatment and type of treatment under investigation). RESULTS: Of the 1263 potentially relevant articles identified during the literature search, twenty-three were included. On average, median pfs or ttp was 16.0 months (standard deviation: 12.4 months) and median os was 43.5 months (standard deviation: 31.2 months). Results of the correlation analysis indicated that median pfs or ttp is highly correlated with median os (Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.813; p ≤ 0.001). A significant correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os was observed in second- and subsequent-line therapies, but not in the first-line setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a strong correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os in previously treated cll, which reinforce the hypothesis that pfs and ttp could be adequate surrogate endpoints for os in this cancer setting.
BACKGROUND: The endpoints of progression-free survival (pfs) and time-to-progression (ttp) are frequently used to evaluate the clinical benefit of anticancer drugs. However, the surrogacy of those endpoints for overall survival (os) is not validated in all cancer settings. In the present study, we used a trial-based approach to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll). METHODS: The pico (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes) method was used to conduct a systematic review of the literature. The population consisted of patients with cll; the interventions and comparators were standard therapies for cll; and the outcomes were median pfs, ttp, and os. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full papers for eligibility and then extracted data from selected studies. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os. Subgroup correlation analyses were also conducted according to the characteristics of the selected studies (such as line of treatment and type of treatment under investigation). RESULTS: Of the 1263 potentially relevant articles identified during the literature search, twenty-three were included. On average, median pfs or ttp was 16.0 months (standard deviation: 12.4 months) and median os was 43.5 months (standard deviation: 31.2 months). Results of the correlation analysis indicated that median pfs or ttp is highly correlated with median os (Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.813; p ≤ 0.001). A significant correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os was observed in second- and subsequent-line therapies, but not in the first-line setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a strong correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os in previously treated cll, which reinforce the hypothesis that pfs and ttp could be adequate surrogate endpoints for os in this cancer setting.
Authors: Michael J Keating; Ian Flinn; Vinay Jain; Jacques-Louis Binet; Peter Hillmen; John Byrd; Maher Albitar; Lee Brettman; Pedro Santabarbara; Bret Wacker; Kanti R Rai Journal: Blood Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: William G Wierda; Swaminathan Padmanabhan; Geoffrey W Chan; Ira V Gupta; Steen Lisby; Anders Osterborg Journal: Blood Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Stefan Faderl; Alessandra Ferrajoli; William Wierda; Susan O'Brien; Susan Lerner; Michael J Keating Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Brice Weinberg; Alicia D Volkheimer; Youwei Chen; Bethany E Beasley; Ning Jiang; Mark C Lanasa; Daphne Friedman; Gina Vaccaro; Catherine W Rehder; Carlos M Decastro; David A Rizzieri; Louis F Diehl; Jon P Gockerman; Joseph O Moore; Barbara K Goodman; Marc C Levesque Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Apostolia M Tsimberidou; William G Wierda; William Plunkett; Razelle Kurzrock; Susan O'Brien; Sijin Wen; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Farhad Ravandi-Kashani; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Zeev Estrov; Thomas J Kipps; Jennifer R Brown; Albert Fiorentino; Susan Lerner; Hagop M Kantarjian; Michael J Keating Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D Catovsky; S Richards; E Matutes; D Oscier; Mjs Dyer; R F Bezares; A R Pettitt; T Hamblin; D W Milligan; J A Child; M S Hamilton; C E Dearden; A G Smith; A G Bosanquet; Z Davis; V Brito-Babapulle; M Else; R Wade; P Hillmen Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Shin-E Lin; Anne Marie Barrette; Cheryl Chapin; Linda W Gonzales; Robert F Gonzalez; Leland G Dobbs; Philip L Ballard Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2015-12-22