Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Overall survival (OS) endpoint: an incomplete evaluation of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment outcome

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Overall survival (OS) has been debated as the most important clinical endpoint in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) trials mainly because survival could be influenced by treatment after progression in an era of effective subsequent-line agents. We conducted a search strategy using PubMed for all the phase 3 trials in the last two decades evaluating survival outcome in MBC. We investigated the frequency of trials reporting survival outcome and response/resistance to treatment beyond progression. One hundred fifteen trials met our eligibility criteria: 69 (60 %) evaluated chemotherapy regimens (group A), 32 (28 %) evaluated targeted therapies (group B), and 14 (12 %) focused on endocrine treatment (group C). An OS benefit was demonstrated in approximately 22 % of the trials in each group. Less than 10 % of the trials in group A and B reported response data after progression on trial therapy. Post-progression treatment resistance was only reported in group A in 3 % (2/69) of the trials. In addition, the number of lines of treatment used post-progression was reported in 14 % (10/69), 9.4 % (3/32), and 14 % (2/14) of the trials in group A, B, and C, respectively. Post-progression survival and its effect on OS was reported in only 1 % (1/69), 3 % (1/32), and 7 % (1/14) of the trials for group A, B, and C respectively. A clear paucity of post-progression treatment information is noted in the majority of the phase 3 trials for MBC. We do know that OS can be affected partially or directly by treatments used after progression. In order to assess the true clinical benefit of a new drug and to have a complete evaluation of OS outcome, a detailed collection of post-progression treatment information is required and should be mandated in MBC trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al. (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 13 Dec 2013

  2. Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics (2013) Canadian cancer statistics 2013. Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chia SK, Speers CH, D’yachkova Y et al (2007) The impact of new chemotherapeutic and hormone agents on survival in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 110(5):973–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gennari A, Conte P, Rosso R et al (2005) Survival of metastatic breast carcinoma patients over a 20-year period: a retrospective analysis based on individual patient data from six consecutive studies. Cancer 104(8):1742–1750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith I (2006) Goals of treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol 33(1 Suppl 2):S2–S5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Leo A, Bleiberg H, Buyse M (2003) Overall survival is not a realistic end point for clinical trials of new drugs in advanced solid tumors: a critical assessment based on recently reported phase III trials in colorectal and breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:2045–2047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saad ED, Katz A (2009) Progression-free survival and time to progression as primary end points in advanced breast cancer: often used, sometimes loosely defined. Ann Oncol 20:460–464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherrill B, Hirst C, Wu Y et al (2007) Correlation between time to progression and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In: 12th annual international meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19–23 May 2007

  9. Burzykowski T, Buyse M, Piccart-Gebhart MJ et al (2008) Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:1987–1992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miksad RA, Zietemann V, Gothe R et al (2008) Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:371–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cardoso F, Harbeck N, Fallowfield L (2012) Locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 7):vii11–vii19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andre F, Slimane K, Bachelot T et al (2004) Breast cancer with synchronous metastases: trends in survival during a 14-year period. J Clin Oncol 22(16):3302–3308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mauri D, Polyzos NP, Salanti G et al (2008) Multiple-treatments meta-analysis of chemotherapy and targeted therapies in advanced breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(24):1780–1791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris CA, Ward RL, Dobbins TA et al (2011) The efficacy of HER2-targeted therapy agents in metastatic breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 22:1308–1317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnston SR (2011) The role of chemotherapy and targeted agents in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 47:38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dean-Colomb W, Esteva FJ (2008) Her2-positive breast cancer: herceptin and beyond. Eur J Cancer 44:2806–2812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kawalec P, Lopuch S, Mikrut A (2014) Effectiveness of targeted therapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer pii:S1526-8209(14)00226-2 [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  18. Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB et al (2015) Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 372(8):724–734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones SE (2008) Metastatic breast cancer: the treatment challenge. Clin Breast Cancer 8(3):224–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roché H, Vahdat LT (2011) Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: second line and beyond. Ann Oncol 22(5):1000–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cardoso F, Di LA, Lohrisch C et al (2002) Second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: what did we learn in the last two decades? Ann Oncol 13(2):197–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang XH, Giuliano M, Trivedi MV et al (2013) Metastasis dormancy in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 19(23):6389–6397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saad ED, Katz A, Buyse M (2010) Overall survival and post-progression survival in advanced breast cancer: a review of recent randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 28(11):1958–1962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verma S, McLeod D, Batist G et al (2011) In the end what matters most? A review of clinical endpoints in advanced breast cancer. Oncologist 16(1):25–35

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilcken N, Dear R (2008) Chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a summary of all randomized trials reported 2000–2007. Eur J Cancer 44:2218–2225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheema PK, Burkes RL (2013) Overall survival should be the primary endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol 20(2):e150–e160

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS (2011) Overall survival as the outcome for randomized clinical trials with effective subsequent therapies. J Clin Oncol 29(17):2439–2442

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaufman B, Mackey JR, Clemens MR et al (2009) Trastuzumab plus anastrozole versus anastrozole alone for the treatment of postmenopausal women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III TAnDEM Study. J Clin Oncol 27:5529–5537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sparano JA, Vrdoljak E, Rixe O (2010) Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 28:3256–3263

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D et al (2006) Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2733–2743

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D et al (2011) Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet 377:914–923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaufman PA, Awada A, Twelves C et al (2015) Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 33(6):594–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Broglio KR, Berry DA (2009) Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1642–1649

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Piccart M, Hortobagyi GN, Campone M et al (2014) Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Ann Oncol 25(12):2357–2362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tannock IF, Pond GR (2014) Everolimus, when combined with exemestane, adds toxicity with minimal benefit for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 25(10):2096. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

S. Verma: Advisory Board—Roche, EISAI, Amgen, Novartis, Astra Zeneca. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Oncology Department, Breast Site, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Jacques Raphael & S. Verma

Authors
  1. Jacques Raphael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques Raphael.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raphael, J., Verma, S. Overall survival (OS) endpoint: an incomplete evaluation of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150, 473–478 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3342-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3342-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation