Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, USA.
Ann Oncol. 2018 Dec 1;29(12):2384-2390. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy447.
Progression-free survival is an increasingly popular surrogate end point for overall survival. The strength of correlation between the two end points varies, raising questions about the correlation between results of interim analyses that report mature progression-free survival data with the subsequent final publication that report overall survival.
We searched PubMed from 2005 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials that measured both progression-free survival and overall survival. We matched interim publications that reported mature progression-free survival data with their final analyses that reported overall survival. We included 25 matched pairs and 8 unmatched interim analyses whose final analyses are not published. Our primary objectives are to compare interim publications with matched final publications in terms of journal prominence and Altmetric score and to compare progression-free survival and overall survival effect sizes.
All interim analyses (n = 33) were prespecified and there was a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in 31 (93.9%). Only eight matched final analyses had statistically significant overall survival data. Interim analyses were more often published in top-5 general medicine journals (P < 0.01) but not in top-5 oncology journals (P = 0.26). Altmetric scores were higher in interim analyses (P < 0.01). Progression-free survival effect sizes from interim analyses were a median of 31% larger than overall survival effect sizes from final analyses.
Interim analyses with progression-free survival data may generate hype in oncology, as evidenced by journal impact factors and Altmetric scores. The cause of this hype may be due, in part, to large progression-free survival effect sizes. Regardless, in trials that investigate progression-free and overall survival, publishing interim analyses with mature progression-free survival data apart from the final analyses with mature overall survival should be cautioned.
无进展生存期是一种越来越受欢迎的替代总生存期的终点。这两个终点之间的相关性强度不同,这就引发了关于报告成熟无进展生存期数据的中期分析结果与随后报告总生存期的最终出版物之间相关性的问题。
我们从 2005 年到 2015 年在 PubMed 上搜索了同时测量无进展生存期和总生存期的随机对照试验。我们将报告成熟无进展生存期数据的中期出版物与报告总生存期的最终分析相匹配。我们纳入了 25 对匹配的和 8 对未匹配的中期分析,其最终分析尚未发表。我们的主要目标是比较中期出版物与匹配的最终出版物在期刊知名度和 Altmetric 评分方面的差异,并比较无进展生存期和总生存期的效果大小。
所有的中期分析(n=33)都是预先设定的,其中 31 项(93.9%)有统计学意义的无进展生存获益。只有 8 项匹配的最终分析有统计学意义的总生存数据。中期分析更常发表在顶级的 5 种一般医学期刊(P<0.01),而不是顶级的 5 种肿瘤学期刊(P=0.26)。中期分析的 Altmetric 评分更高(P<0.01)。中期分析的无进展生存期效果大小中位数比最终分析的总生存期效果大小中位数大 31%。
有成熟无进展生存期数据的中期分析可能会在肿瘤学领域产生炒作,这可以从期刊影响因子和 Altmetric 评分上得到证明。这种炒作的原因可能部分是由于无进展生存期效果大小较大。无论如何,在研究无进展生存期和总生存期的试验中,发布有成熟无进展生存期数据的中期分析,而不发布有成熟总生存期数据的最终分析,应该谨慎对待。