A review of studies examining the relationship between progression ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reference Data type Relationships analysed Methods used ResultsMandrekar2010 19 Individualpatient leveldataIndividual patient data onPFS and OSLandmark analysis for OS by PFS at;8weeks12weeks16weeks20weeks24 weeksHR=0.45 (95%CI 0.33-0.62) p
Table 2 summarises the methods used within the individual studies to analyse the relationshipbetween PFS/TTP and OS. The analyses conducted fall into three broad categories. Four studies usedaggregate data from multiple trials to examine the relationship between PFS and OS for individualtrial arms. The methods for these studies are summarised in Section 4.1 with results presented inSection 4.3. Seven studies use IPD to examine the relationship between PFS and OS for individualpatients. The methods for these studies are summarised in Section 4.2 and the results in Section 4.3.Thirteen studies examined the trial level relationship between treatment effect on PFS and treatmenteffect on OS with three using IPD and the remaining using aggregate data from multiple trials. Theseare summarised in Section 5. The majority of papers examining trial level association betweenoutcomes report either rank correlation coefficients or linear regressions. Landmark analysis, 29 whichassesses the prognostic impact on future survival of being alive and progression free at various timepoints, has been used by many of the more recent papers which use IPD to examine the associationbetween outcomes at the individual level.4. STUDIES EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUTCOMESFOR INDIVIDUALS OR SINGLE TREATMENT ARMS4.1. METHODS IN STUDIES USING AGGREGATE DATA FROM MULTIPLE TRIALSFour papers reported the relationship between median PFS or TTP and median OS using aggregatedata from multiple trials. 13,22,25,27 Due to inconsistency in the definition of TTP, Chirilia et al 13conducted separate analysis for PFS, TTP and a composite outcome including both PFS and TTP.One study also examined the relationship between OS and survival post-progression which wasdefined as the difference in median PFS and median OS. 25Three papers report spearman ρcorrelation coefficients 13,22,27 and two report linear regressions 22,25 with the more recent paperweighting the regression by trial size. Three papers included a variety of first-line treatments and oneincluded first, second and third-line treatments. 13 One paper 25 conducted subgroup analysis to assesswhether the relationship varied according to the following factors; treatment type (platinum-based,molecular-targeted agents, old chemotherapeutic agents), whether OS was the primary endpoint, theyear of trial initiation and whether the publication was full text or abstract only. The other threepapers did not conduct any analysis to assess whether factors such as treatment type had an effect onthe relationship between PFS/TTP and OS.21
Page 1 and 2: A REVIEW OF STUDIES EXAMINING THE R
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroductionProgre
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION ...........
Page 7 and 8: 1. INTRODUCTION1.1. BACKGROUNDProgr
Page 9 and 10: equivalent incremental benefit in O
Page 11: 2. REVIEW METHODS2.1. SEARCH STRATE
Page 14 and 15: Table 1: Characteristics of include
Page 16 and 17: Table 2: Methods used to analyse th
Page 18 and 19: Reference Data type Relationships a
Page 22 and 23: 4.2. METHODS IN STUDIES USING INDIV
Page 24 and 25: 5.1. DEFINITION OF TREATMENT EFFECT
Page 26 and 27: 5.3. OTHER MEASURES OF CORRELATION
Page 28 and 29: The slope parameters in the linear
Page 30 and 31: Table 4: Summary of results by tumo
Page 33 and 34: many of the papers included in this
Page 35 and 36: 8. REFERENCES1. Therasse, P., Arbuc
Page 37 and 38: 25. Hotta, K., Kiura, K., Fujiwara,
Page 39 and 40: APPENDIX 2: SEARCH STRATEGIESThe in
Page 41: 38 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 (1206968)39

A review of studies examining the relationship between progression ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?