Overall Survival: Still the Gold Standard: Why Overall Survival Remains the Definitive End Point in Cancer Clinical Trials

Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard primary end point to evaluate the outcome of any drug, biologic, intervention, or procedure that is assessed in oncologic clinical trials. OS is universally recognized as being unambiguous, unbiased, with a defined end point of paramount clinical relevance, and positive results provide confirmatory evidence that a given treatment extends the life of a patient. Clinical trialists relentlessly attempt to devise more easily measured, cost-effective, and readily available event-driven end points as predictive surrogates of a definitive outcome, such as OS, and reduce the time with which clinical trials deliver definitive results. For some treatment modalities used in a limited number of cancer types, certain event-driven surrogates, eg, progression-free survival or time-to-progression may predict OS benefit. Biologic, cell-based, and vaccine-generated treatments are rapidly expanding the oncologist’s armamentarium to combat cancers and pose a dilemma in that response may not be reflected by progression-free survival, time-to-progression, or other surrogates? As targeted therapies march forward, will each new therapy require a unique biomarker validated for every disease indication? Moreover, adjuvant treatments have demonstrated efficacy and given the current limited possibility of cure in the metastatic setting, should other end points, eg, quality-of-life, emerge as valid outcomes to demonstrate benefit. Clinical trials must continue to assess OS until biologically plausible measures are developed and emerge as valid early end point surrogates to replace the gold standard.

[1]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  Accelerated approval of oncology products: a decade of experience. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  H. Sandler,et al.  Potential surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer survival: analysis of a phase III randomized trial. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  Thomas R Fleming,et al.  Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. , 2005, Health affairs.

[4]  T. Fojo,et al.  Bevacizumab reduces the growth rate constants of renal carcinomas: a novel algorithm suggests early discontinuation of bevacizumab resulted in a lack of survival advantage. , 2008, The oncologist.

[5]  Roy S Herbst,et al.  Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 2. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Ethical, scientific, and regulatory perspectives regarding the use of placebos in cancer clinical trials. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Mindy I. Davis,et al.  A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  J. Buckner,et al.  Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: a north central cancer treatment group investigation. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  R. Schilsky Hurry up and wait: is accelerated approval of new cancer drugs in the best interests of cancer patients? , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  J. Salerno Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). , 1986, Lancet.

[11]  E. Topol,et al.  Clinical trials--multiple treatments, multiple end points, and multiple lessons. , 2003, JAMA.

[12]  A. Miller,et al.  Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.

[13]  M. Sormani,et al.  Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  J. Minna,et al.  Tumor mRNA expression profiles predict responses to chemotherapy. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[16]  G. Giaccone,et al.  Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 1. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  M. Buyse,et al.  Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  R. Motzer,et al.  Sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. , 2006, JAMA.

[20]  Masahiro Fukuoka,et al.  Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (The IDEAL 1 Trial) [corrected]. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.