Surrogate endpoints in second-line treatment for mCRC: A systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials

Clemens Giessen, Ruediger Paul Laubender, Donna Pauler Ankerst, Sebastian Stintzing, Dominik Paul Modest, Christoph Schulz, Ulrich Mansmann, Volker Heinemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) as potential surrogate endpoints (SEP) for overall survival (OS) in second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods. A systematic literature search of randomised trials of second-line chemotherapy for mCRC reported from January 2000 to July 2013 was performed. Correlation coefficients weighted by number of patients in the treatment arms between median PFS, ORR and DCR with median OS were estimated. Results. Twenty-three trials reflecting 10 800 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median PFS and OS across all trials were 4.5 months and 11.5 months and median ORR and DCR were 11.4% and 65%, respectively. PFS showed moderate correlation with OS [RPFS = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.82]. In contrast, ORR only weakly correlated with OS (RORR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.72, n = 22). Despite a small number of studies (n = 10) reporting on DCR, moderate correlation with OS was observed (RDCR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.86). Conclusion. Based on the available trial-level data, PFS may serve as an appropriate SEP in second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. A small number of studies revealed moderate correlation of DCR with OS that justifies further investigation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)187-193
Number of pages7
JournalActa Oncologica
Volume54
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Surrogate endpoints in second-line treatment for mCRC: A systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this