Is progression-free survival a more relevant endpoint than overall survival in first-line HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anna Forsythe,1 David Chandiwana,2 Janina Barth,3 Marroon Thabane,4 Johan Baeck,5 Anastasiya Shor,1 Gabriel Tremblay6 1Health Technology Assessment Evidence, Purple Squirrel Economics, New York, NY, USA; 2Global Value and Access, Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 3German Market Access, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany; 4Health Policy and Patient Access, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Dorval, QC, Canada; 5Global Medical Affairs (Oncology Business Unit), Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 6Health Economics, Purple Squirrel Economics, New York, NY, USA Background: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative (HER2−), metastatic breast cancer (MBC) accounts for 73% of all MBCs. Endocrine therapy (ET) is the basis of first-line (1L) therapy for patients with HR+/HER2− MBC. Novel therapies have demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to ET. The clinical relevance of PFS is being debated, as there is no proven direct correlation with overall survival (OS) benefit to date. We reviewed studies of HR+/HER2− MBC to assess PFS and other factors that influence OS and treatment response, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: The Embase®, Medline®, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies in adult women with HR+/HER2− MBC, published between January 2006 and January 2017, and written in English. Phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational, and retrospective studies were included. Results: Seventy-nine RCTs were identified: 58 (73%) in the 1L+ setting and 21 (27%) in second-line or greater settings. PFS hazard ratios (HRs) were reported in 61 (77%) studies; 31 (39%) reported significant PFS improvements. OS was reported in 44 (41%) studies; 12 (15%) reported significant OS improvements. Significant improvements in both PFS and OS were reported in only 6 (8%) studies (1 Phase II; 5 Phase III). Patients with HER2− MBC received, on average, ≥5 lines of therapy, with no consistent treatment pathway. Baseline characteristics, prior therapies, and the type and number of post-progression therapies significantly impacted OS. PFS, response rates, and HRQoL decreased with each line of therapy (EuroQol 5 Dimensions: 0.78 1L vs. 0.70 post-progression). Conclusion: Few RCTs in HR+/HER2− MBC have demonstrated significant improvements in OS. Factors other than choice of 1L therapy impact OS, including post-progression therapies, which cannot be controlled in RCTs. This study emphasizes the importance of PFS improvement in 1L treatment of HR+/HER2− MBC. Keywords: breast cancer, overall survival, progression-free survival, health-related quality of life, systematic literature review
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".