Relationship between Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Literature-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The endpoints of progression-free survival (pfs) and time-to-progression (ttp) are frequently used to evaluate the clinical benefit of anticancer drugs. However, the surrogacy of those endpoints for overall survival (os) is not validated in all cancer settings. In the present study, we used a trial-based approach to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll). METHODS: The pico (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes) method was used to conduct a systematic review of the literature. The population consisted of patients with cll; the interventions and comparators were standard therapies for cll; and the outcomes were median pfs, ttp, and os. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full papers for eligibility and then extracted data from selected studies. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os. Subgroup correlation analyses were also conducted according to the characteristics of the selected studies (such as line of treatment and type of treatment under investigation). RESULTS: Of the 1263 potentially relevant articles identified during the literature search, twenty-three were included. On average, median pfs or ttp was 16.0 months (standard deviation: 12.4 months) and median os was 43.5 months (standard deviation: 31.2 months). Results of the correlation analysis indicated that median pfs or ttp is highly correlated with median os (Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.813; p ≤ 0.001). A significant correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os was observed in second- and subsequent-line therapies, but not in the first-line setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a strong correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os in previously treated cll, which reinforce the hypothesis that pfs and ttp could be adequate surrogate endpoints for os in this cancer setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".