Progression-free survival/time to progression as a potential surrogate for overall survival in HR+, HER2– metastatic breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS); however, few have reported improvement in overall survival (OS). The surrogacy of PFS or time to progression (TTP) for OS has not been formally investigated in HR+, HER2– MBC. Methods: A systematic literature review of RCTs in HR+, HER2– MBC was conducted to identify studies that reported both median PFS/TTP and OS. The correlation between PFS/TTP and OS was evaluated using Pearson’s product–moment correlation and Spearman’s rank correlation. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Errors-in-variables weighted least squares regression (LSR) was used to model incremental OS months as a function of incremental PFS/TTP months. An exploratory analysis investigated the impact of three covariates (chemotherapy vs hormonal/targeted therapy, PFS vs TTP, and first-line therapy vs second-line therapy or greater) on OS prediction. The lower 95% prediction band was used to determine the minimum incremental PFS/TTP months required to predict OS benefit (surrogate threshold effect [STE]). Results: Forty studies were identified. There was a statistically significant correlation between median PFS/TTP and OS (Pearson =0.741, P =0.000; Spearman =0.650, P =0.000). These results proved consistent for chemotherapy and hormonal/targeted therapy. Univariate LSR analysis yielded an R 2 of 0.354 with 1 incremental PFS/TTP month corresponding to 1.13 incremental OS months. Controlling the type of treatment (chemotherapy vs hormonal/targeted therapy), line of therapy (first vs subsequent), and progression measure (PFS vs TTP) led to an improved R 2 of 0.569 with 1 PFS/TTP month corresponding to 0.78 OS months. The STE for OS benefit was 5–6 months of incremental PFS/TTP. Conclusion: We demonstrated a significant association between PFS/TTP and OS, which may justify the use of PFS/TTP as a surrogate for OS benefit in HR+, HER2– MBC. Keywords: breast cancer, overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, correlation analysis, surrogate endpoint
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".