Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endpoints in lung cancer trials: today’s challenges for clinical statistics

  • short review
  • Published:
memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The identification of potential molecular targets in lung cancer has stimulated the today’s search for antitumor agents to be tested in clinical trials with an appropriate endpoint. Three main categories of classical endpoints are applied: survival time endpoints, symptom endpoints, and endpoints relying on patients’ reporting, with the gold standard overall survival (OS). Efforts have been taken to substitute OS by surrogates. As a surrogate for OS, progression-free survival (PFS) should have the inherent considerable advantage, that it can detect subpopulations with longer PFS intervals early. OS and PFS was linked directly by splitting OS into PFS and the rest as survival time past progression (SPP). Variation in SPP is a quantitative factor in validating PFS as a surrogate of OS. If accompanied by some independent measures like quality of life (QoL) or treatment toxicity, PFS should be able to cover the clinical benefit achieved by treatment. In an adaptive trial design, the impact of SPP can be modeled by adjustments of the covariate structure by factors as QoL. OS as the gold standard is easy to measure and is precise but results are available late. PFS in contrast is complex to measure but will become attractive, because its results are available earlier and are not influenced by subsequent therapies. Therefore, PFS, as an endpoint with some extra measures, has become an acceptable alternative to OS in lung cancer trials recently. Extra measures under discussion to enrich PFS are QoL and information of SPP, or adaptive designs.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pilz LR, Manegold C, Schmid-Bindert G. Statistical considerations and endpoints for clinical lung cancer studies: can progression free survival (PFS) substitute overall survival (OS) as a valid endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small cell lung cancer? Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2012;1(1):26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Klein PJ, Goel PK (eds.). Survival analysis: State of the art. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 1992.

  3. Klein PJ, Moeschberger ML. Survival analysis. Techniques for censored and truncated data. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in clinical trials: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Day SJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: blinding in clinical trials and other studies. Brit Med J. 2000;321(7259):504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomized trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359(9307):696–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shih WJ. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2002;3:4. doi: 10.1186/1468-6708-3-4.

  8. Michiels S, Mauguen A, Fisher D, et al. Evaluation of disease-free survival as surrogate endpoint for overall survival using two individual patient data meta-analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(No 15_suppl):abstract 7004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics. Draft Guidance. June 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM259421.pdf

  10. George SL. Response rate as an endpoint in clinical trials. Editorial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(2):98–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Editorial. British Med J. 2007;334(7597):756–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thongprasert S, Sanguanmitra P, Juthapan W, Clinch J. Relationship between quality of life and clinical outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC plus chemotherapy. Lung Cancer. 1999;24(1):17–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Group, Oxford. A structured review of patient-oriented outcome measures (PROMs) for lung cancer. Report to the department of health, 2010, University of Oxford.

  14. Johnson KR, Ringland C, Stokes BJ, et al. Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(9):741–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Soria JC, Massard C, Le Chevalier T. Should progression-free survival be the primary measure of efficacy for advanced NSCLC therapy? Ann Oncol. 2010;21(12):2324–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin DY, Robins JM, Wei LJ. Comparing two failure time distributions in the presence of dependent censoring. Biometrika. 1996;83(2):381–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen TT, Simon RM, Korn EL, et al. Investigation of disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for survival in cancer clinical trials. Commun Statist Theory Meth. 1998;27(6):1363–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ulm K. Primary endpoints in cancer trials. J Thorac Dis. 2011;3(2):82–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Malik SM, Ibrahim A, Sridhara R, Justice RL, Pazdur R. Use of progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials: FDA perspective. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(suppl;abstr.e18001).

  20. Broglio KR, Berry DA. Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bowater RJ, Bridge LJ, Lilford RJ. The relationship between progression free and post-progression survival in treating four types of metastatic cancer. Cancer Letter 2008;262(1):48–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al. Overall survival with cisplatin–gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial (AVAiL). Ann Oncol. 2010;21(9):1804–09.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hotta K, Suzuki E, Di Maio M, et al. Progression-free survival and overall survival in phase III trials of molecular-targeted agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2013;79(1):20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zietemann VD, Schuster T, Duell THG. Post-study therapy as a source of confounding in survival analysis of first-line studies in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2011;3(2):88–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hilbe W, Aigner K, Dittrich C, et al. Expertenempfehlung 2006 zur rationalen Zweitlinien-Therapie beim nicht-kleinzelligen Bronchuskarzinom. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2007;119(7–8):259–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fleming TR, Rothmann MD, Lu H-L. Issues in using progression-free survival when evaluating oncology products. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(17):2874–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United Stated Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1404–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605–13.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hotta K, Kiura K, Fujiwara Y, et al. Role of survival post-progression in Phase III trials of systemic chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(11):e26646.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hayashi H, Okamoto I, Morita S, Taguri M, Nakagawa K. Postprogression survival for first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1537–1541.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Reck M. Quality of life as endpoint of clinical trials. Lung Cancer. 2009; 64suppl1 (43IN):S22–S23.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tassinari D. Surrogate end points of quality of life assessment: have we really found what we are looking for? Health Qual of Life Outcomes. 2003;1:71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Editorial. British Med J. 2007;334(7597):756–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schrimpf D, Manegold C, Pilz LR. Design of clinical studies: adaptive randomization and progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in clinical studies of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics. 2013;51(1):84–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest


The authors, Lothar R. Pilz and Christian Manegold, declare that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1, 68167, Mannheim, Germany

    Lothar R Pilz &  Christian Manegold

Authors
  1. Lothar R Pilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Manegold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lothar R Pilz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pilz, L., Manegold, C. Endpoints in lung cancer trials: today’s challenges for clinical statistics. memo 6, 92–97 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12254-013-0082-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12254-013-0082-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation