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
. 2022 Apr;17(2):180-187.
doi: 10.1159/000518260. Epub 2021 Aug 20.

Physicians' Perception of the Evidence in Relation to Primary Endpoints of Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer

Affiliations

Physicians' Perception of the Evidence in Relation to Primary Endpoints of Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer

Yi Zhang et al. Breast Care (Basel). 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate physicians' perception of the evidence of clinical trials on breast cancer.

Methods: A survey was conducted by the Chinese Society of Breast Surgeons. We investigated the physicians' perception of meaningful endpoints, appropriate follow-up duration, and clinically acceptable benefit through online questionnaires.

Results: Among 278 validated questionnaires, the majority of the questions had no consistent answer. For local treatment, 30.6, 28.8, and 28.4% of participants regarded locoregional recurrence (LRR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) as the most meaningful endpoint, respectively, 47.5% believed that 5-year follow-up can alter clinical practice, and 34.5% thought it should be >10 years. In the adjuvant setting, 45.7, 38.5, and 12.9% regarded DFS, OS, and LRR as the most meaningful endpoint, respectively, 52.5% thought that 10-year follow-up was solid, while 37.4% thought that 5-year follow-up was enough. In the advanced setting, 49.6, 24.1, and 23.7% considered progression-free survival, quality of life, and OS the most meaningful endpoint, respectively, and 39.6 and 28.8% considered that a follow-up of 1 year and 3 years, respectively, was meaningful. Similarly, the clinically acceptable absolute difference was inconsistent.

Conclusion: Most Chinese oncologists advocated that surrogate endpoints could be used in certain circumstances, though OS was the most reliable one in breast cancer studies. Doctors' perceptions of follow-up time and magnitude of benefit vary widely, reflecting the fact that there are many unanswered questions about supporting the use of new cancer treatments; a common understanding needs to be reached, such as a very consensual surrogate endpoint and a meaningful sufficiently large therapeutic benefit.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Clinical trial; Primary endpoint.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing nonfinancial/financial interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The most valuable endpoint in the investigation of local treatment (A), adjuvant systemic therapy (B), and systemic salvage treatment (C) for breast cancer. AE, adverse effect; BCSS, breast cancer-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival; LR, local recurrence; LRR, locoregional recurrence; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; QOL, quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The meaningful follow-up time in trials investigating local recurrence (A), adjuvant systemic treatment (B), and systemic salvage treatment (C) of breast cancer.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meaningful absolute survival benefit when the primary endpoint is OS (A), DFS (B), LR (C), or PFS (D). DFS, disease-free survival; LR, local recurrence; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71((3)):209–49. - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67((1)):7–30. - PubMed
    1. Zhou Q, Chen XY, Yang ZM, Wu YL. The changing landscape of clinical trial and approval processes in China. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep;14((9)):577–83. - PubMed
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312((7023)):71–2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Available from: https://www.nccn.org.