Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session

4212 - Investigating discrepancies in assessments of PFS by study investigators and independent review

Date

10 Sep 2017

Session

Poster display session

Topics

Cancers in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA);  Bioethical Principles and GCP

Presenters

Clare Jones

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v395-v402. 10.1093/annonc/mdx375

Authors

C.F. Jones, J.F. Soto Barrientos, G. Monnickendam

Author affiliations

  • Oncology, PRMA Consulting, GU51 2UZ - Fleet/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 4212

Background

OS is considered the gold standard trial endpoint, particularly for health technology assessment. However OS faces challenges – from subsequent therapy bias to needing long trials that delay patients’ access to promising medicines. PFS is often used either instead of, or alongside, OS – by regulators, clinicians, payers, and more recently, value frameworks in oncology. PFS is without a standardized measure. We examine the extent of differences between independent central review (ICR) and investigator assessed (INV) PFS. We aim to increase understanding of potential variability in PFS measurement, relevant associations and possible causal factors to inform appropriate use of PFS in payer and clinician decision-making.

Methods

We searched Clinicaltrials.gov for ‘progression free survival’ and ‘cancer’, filtering for interventional phase 2 or 3 studies with results. Studies were extracted and the primary and secondary outcomes filtered for ICR and INV based PFS. We searched PubMed with the same criteria; full articles were reviewed and studies reporting for ICR and INV based PFS included. For comparative trials, we calculated difference in median PFS between intervention and control arms for ICR and INV based PFS. For single arm trials, the difference between ICR and INV based PFS was calculated where both were reported.

Results

Of 365 studies from clinical trials.gov; 48 reported ICR based PFS and 45 reported INV. 6 studies reporting both were included. Of 49 studies from PubMed; 21 were included. There was 1 duplicate. The majority of studies were comparative (23/26), in solid tumors (21/26), and published in the last 5 years (21/26).

Calculating the PFS gain at the median, the difference between the ICR based gain and the INV based gain ranged from 0.1 to 4.3 months. In 9 comparisons the gain with ICR was greater than the gain with INV. In 6 comparisons the difference in PFS gain was ≥2 months, a difference of up to 54% of the gains alone.

Conclusions

ICR and INV based PFS produce different estimates of PFS gain in clinical trials, but it remains uncommon for studies to report both ICR and INV based PFS. Both measures should be required, to improve consistency of comparison across trials and transfer of trial results to real world practices and decision-making.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

PRMA Consulting Ltd

Funding

PRMA Consulting

Disclosure

C.F. Jones, J.F. Soto Barrientos, G. Monnickendam: Employee of PRMA Consulting who sponsored this research.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.