Overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Are we using the right endpoint in the right way?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
142 Background: OS has been historically considered the most important clinical endpoint in MBC trials; however survival could be influenced by treatment after progression in an era of effective subsequent-line agents. Methods: We conducted a search strategy using PubMed for randomized phase 3 trials published in the last 2 decades (1994-2014) evaluating survival outcome in MBC. We investigated the frequency of trials reporting post progression outcome and response/resistance to treatment beyond progression. Results: 110 trials met our eligibility criteria: 69 (63%) evaluated chemotherapy regimens (group A), 27 (25%) evaluated targeted therapy (group B) and 14 (13%) focused on endocrine treatment (group C). The majority of the trials had OS as a primary or secondary endpoint (97% (66/69), 100% (27/27) and 86% (12/14) of the trials in group A, B and C respectively). An OS benefit was demonstrated in approximately 22% of the trials in each group. Post progression survival (PPS) and its effect on OS was reported and discussed in only 1% (1/69), 4% (1/27) and 7% (1/14) of the trials for group A, B and C respectively. Less than 10% of the trials in group A and B reported response data and duration of response after progression on trial therapy. In addition, post progression treatment resistance was only reported in group A in 3% (2/69) of the trials. Furthermore, the number of lines of treatment used post progression was reported in only 14% (10/69), 11% (3/27) and 14% (2/14) of the trials in group A, B and C respectively. Conclusions: A clear paucity of post progression treatment information is noted in the majority of the phase 3 trials for MBC. We do know that OS is directly affected by treatments used after progression. In order to assess the true clinical benefit of a new drug and a complete evaluation of overall survival outcome, a detailed collection of post progression treatment information is required and should be mandated in MBC clinical studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".