Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

Should Overall Survival Remain an Endpoint for Multiple Myeloma Trials?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the traditional gold standard for demonstrating clinical benefit of a therapy has been to show prolongation of overall survival (OS), there are multiple factors which can hinder the use of OS as a primary endpoint in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we analyze recent myeloma RCTs and evaluate the issues relevant to current and future myeloma RCT design.

RECENT FINDINGS

A review of recent phase III RCTs that led to approval of new agents/combinations reveals that none were designed with OS as the primary endpoint, but instead utilized time to progression (TTP) or progression-free survival (PFS). These studies illuminate the inherent difficulties of designing trials with the primary endpoint of OS/PFS in a disease characterized by increasingly prolonged survival times, availability of effective salvage therapies, and competing events such as co-morbid conditions. Alternative primary endpoints other than OS or PFS need to be developed for future myeloma RCTs. Validated surrogate endpoints with novel clinical trial designs will help improve the feasibility of conducting comparative clinical trials in a timely manner.

Progression-free survival in oncology: Caveat emptor!

Overall survival (OS) is the undisputed gold standard efficacy end-point in cancer drug trials. It is with growing concern that we observe how progression-free survival (PFS) gains ground as surrogate end-point in its place. PFS has appeal because it is resource-efficient, but it has severe shortcomings. Our concern is that uncritical use of PFS will harm the evidence-based evaluation of cancer drugs when considering them for standard use in publicly financed health care systems. PFS is only valid as a surrogate end-point for OS if it correlates strongly with OS and if the cancer drug being investigated has the same effect on PFS and OS such that effects on one predict effects on the other. The latter might be less obvious than the former but is no less critical. Research indicates that in a majority of cases, correlation between surrogate end-points and OS is of medium strength or lower. PFS is therefore unreliable as a surrogate for OS. We do not find it justified to use PFS as surrogate for OS without first having assessed its validity. Stakeholders who take part in evaluating cancer drugs considered for standard use in a health care system must be particularly vigilant about this issue to minimize the risk of introducing cancer drugs that have an unacceptable cost-risk-benefit profile.