Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, B2M RDC, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France.
Université Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, CESP, INSERM U1018, 94805, Villejuif, France.
Drugs. 2017 May;77(7):713-719. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0728-y.
Over the past 15 years, targeted therapy has revolutionized the systemic treatment of cancer. In parallel, there has been a growing debate on the choice of end points in clinical trials in oncology. This debate basically hinges on the choice between overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). PFS is advantageous because it is measured earlier than OS, requires a smaller sample size than OS to achieve the desired power, and is not influenced by cross-over. On the other hand, PFS is prone to measurement error and bias, and may not capture the entire treatment effect on the outcomes of most interest to patients with an incurable disease: a prolonged survival and improved quality of life. Therefore, how can we choose between two imperfect end points? The answer to this question would certainly be made easier if PFS could be demonstrated to be a valid surrogate for OS. The validation of a surrogate end point is best made using individual-patient data (IPD) from randomized trials, which allows for standardized assessments of the patient-level and the trial-level correlations between surrogate and final end points. Proper IPD meta-analytical evaluations for targeted agents have still been rare, and to our knowledge only three studies on this topic are currently available in the metastatic setting: one in breast cancer, one in colorectal cancer and one in lung cancer. Although these three studies suffer from limitations inherent to the availability of IPD and the design of the original clinical trials, they have not been able to validate PFS as surrogate for OS, because only modest correlations were found between these two end points, both at the patient and at the trial level. Even if properly conducted surrogate-endpoint evaluations have thus far been unsuccessful, these evaluations are a step in the right direction and can be expected to be applied on a much larger scale in the era of data sharing of clinical trials.
在过去的 15 年中,靶向治疗彻底改变了癌症的系统治疗方法。与此同时,在肿瘤学临床试验终点的选择上,一直存在着激烈的争论。这场争论主要围绕着总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)的选择展开。PFS 的优势在于它比 OS 更早被测量,需要比 OS 更小的样本量来达到预期的效力,并且不受交叉影响。另一方面,PFS 容易受到测量误差和偏差的影响,并且可能无法捕捉到对患有不治之症的患者最感兴趣的结果的全部治疗效果:延长的生存时间和提高的生活质量。因此,我们如何在两个不完美的终点之间进行选择?如果 PFS 可以被证明是 OS 的有效替代指标,那么这个问题的答案肯定会更容易。替代终点的验证最好使用随机试验的个体患者数据(IPD)进行,这允许对患者水平和试验水平之间替代终点和最终终点的相关性进行标准化评估。针对靶向药物的适当 IPD 荟萃分析评估仍然很少见,据我们所知,目前在转移性环境中只有三项关于这个主题的研究:一项在乳腺癌中,一项在结直肠癌中,一项在肺癌中。尽管这三项研究受到 IPD 的可用性和原始临床试验设计的内在限制,但它们未能验证 PFS 作为 OS 的替代指标,因为这两个终点之间只有适度的相关性,无论是在患者水平还是在试验水平上。即使正确进行了替代终点评估,但迄今为止,这些评估并没有成功,它们是朝着正确方向迈出的一步,可以预期在临床试验数据共享时代将在更大规模上应用。