Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Jul;10(7):1099-106.
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000548.

Multitrial Evaluation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in First-Line Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Multitrial Evaluation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in First-Line Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Nathan R Foster et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction: We previously reported that progression-free survival (PFS) may be a candidate surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) in first-line extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) using data from three randomized trials (Foster, Cancer 2011). In this validation study (N0424-Alliance), we assessed the patient-level and trial-level surrogacy of PFS using data from seven new first-line phase II/III ES-SCLC trials and across all 10 trials as well (seven new, three previous).

Methods: Individual patient data were utilized across the seven new trials (2259 patients) and all 10 trials (2855 patients). Patient-level surrogacy (Kendall's τ) was assessed using the Clayton copula bivariate survival model. Trial-level surrogacy was assessed through association of the log hazard ratios on OS and PFS across trials, including weighted (by trial size) least squares regression (WLS R²) of Cox model effects and correlation of the copula effects (copula R²). The minimum effect on the surrogate (MES) needed to detect a nonzero treatment effect on OS was also calculated.

Results: The median OS and PFS across all 10 trials were 9.8 and 5.9 months, respectively. PFS showed strong surrogacy within the 7 new trials (copula R² = 0.90 [standard error = 0.27], WLS R² = 0.83 [95% confidence interval: 0.43, 0.95]; MES = 0.67, and Kendall's τ = 0.58) and across all 10 trials (copula R² = 0.81 [standard errors = 0.25], WLS R² = 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.91], MES = 0.70, and Kendall's τ = 0.57).

Conclusions: PFS demonstrated strong surrogacy for OS in first-line ES-SCLC based on this external validation study of individual patient data. PFS is a good alternative end point to OS and should be considered when resource constraints (time or patient) might make it useful or desirable in place of OS. Additional analyses are needed to assess its appropriateness for targeted agents in this disease setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: For the remaining authors, none were declared.

Figures

Figure I
Figure I
Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by experimental vs. control treated patients (N=2855).
Figure II
Figure II
Plot of the log of the hazard ratios (HRs) for each experimental arm vs. control arm for each trial for the endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival across the 7 new trials.
Figure III
Figure III
Plot of the log of the hazard ratios (HRs) for each experimental arm vs. control arm for each trial for the endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival across all 10 trials.
Figure IV
Figure IV
Plot of the log of the hazard ratios (HRs) for each experimental arm vs. control arm for each trial for the endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival within the 9 first-line studies that included a platinum/etoposide treatment combination.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan;64(1):9–29. - PubMed
    1. National Cancer Institute. [Accessed in April 2014];US National Institutes of Health website on small-cell lung cancer for health professionals. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/small-cell-lung/healthp....
    1. Okamoto H, Watanabe K, Kunikane H, et al. Randomised phase III trial of carboplatin plus etoposide vs split doses of cisplatin plus etoposide in elderly or poor-risk patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: JCOG 9702. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(2):162–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roth BJ, Johnson DH, Einhorn LH, et al. Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(2):282–91. - PubMed
    1. Pujol JL, Carestia L, Daurès JP. Is there a case for cisplatin in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer? A meta-analysis of randomized trials of a cisplatin-containing regimen versus a regimen without this alkylating agent. Br J Cancer. 2000;83(1):8–15. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms