The Clinical Viewpoint: Definitions, Limitations of RECIST, Practical Considerations of Measurement
- 12 May 2013
- journal article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Clinical Cancer Research
- Vol. 19 (10), 2629-2636
- https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2935
Abstract
In selecting an endpoint in clinical trial design, it is important to consider that the endpoint is both reliably measured and clinically meaningful. As such, overall survival (OS) has traditionally been considered the most clinically relevant and convincing endpoint in clinical trial design as long as it is accompanied by preservation in quality of life. However, progression-free survival (PFS) is increasingly more prominent in clinical trial design because of feasibility issues (smaller sample sizes and shorter follow-up). PFS has the advantage of taking into account not only responsive disease, but stable disease as well, an issue of particular importance in the relapsed and refractory setting in which therapies are often associated with a minimal to nil response but may still confer a survival advantage. Finally, PFS has a significant advantage in molecularly selected populations, in whom OS advantages are difficult to detect due to the effects of crossover. With an understanding of the limitations and biases that are introduced with PFS as a primary endpoint, we believe that PFS is not only a viable but also a necessary alternative to OS in assessing the efficacy of selected novel-targeted therapies in molecularly defined cancer populations. Ultimately, the selection of a clinical trial endpoint should not be based on a one-size-fits all approach; rather, it should be based on the specifics of the therapeutic strategy being tested and the population under study. Clin Cancer Res; 19(10); 2629–36. ©2013 AACR.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2012
- Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysisThe Lancet Oncology, 2011
- Biomarker Analyses and Final Overall Survival Results From a Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, First-Line Study of Gefitinib Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Clinically Selected Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Asia (IPASS)Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2011
- Tumor response and progression‐free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in extensive stage small‐cell lung cancerCancer, 2010
- Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic MelanomaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Vandetanib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ZODIAC): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2010
- Endpoints in Phase II Trials for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung CancerJournal of Thoracic Oncology, 2010
- Gefitinib or Carboplatin–Paclitaxel in Pulmonary AdenocarcinomaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2005