PURPOSE
Progression-free survival (PFS) based endpoints are controversial; however in advanced lung cancer, overall survival is largely influenced by the progression status. We thus evaluated the impact of progression date (PD) determination approach on PFS estimates.
METHODS
Individual patient data from 21 trials (14 NCCTG; 7 SWOG) were used. Reported progression date (RPD) was defined as either the scan date or the clinical deterioration date. PD was determined using 4 methods (M): RPD (M1), one day after last progression-free scan (M2), midpoint between last progression-free scan and RPD (M3), and using an interval censoring approach (M4). PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (M1, M2, M3), and maximum likelihood (M4). Simulation studies were performed to understand the impact of the length of time elapsed between the last progression-free scan and the PD on time to progression (TTP) estimates.
RESULTS
PFS estimates using RPD were the highest, with M2 being the most conservative. M3 and M4 were similar due to majority of progressions occurring during treatment (i.e., frequent disease assessments). M3 was less influenced by the length of the assessment schedules (%difference from true TTP <1.5%) compared to M1 (11% to 30%) and M2 (-8% to -29%). The overall study conclusion was unaffected by the method used for randomized trials.
CONCLUSION
The magnitude of difference in the PFS estimates is large enough to alter trial conclusions in advanced lung cancer. Standards for PD determination, use of sensitivity analyses, and randomized trials are critical when designing trials and reporting efficacy using PFS based endpoints.