Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access originally published online on October 14, 2009
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009 101(21):1439-1441; doi:10.1093/jnci/djp399
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Oxford University Press 2009.
NEWS |
Progression-Free Survival Remains Debatable Endpoint in Cancer Trials
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In recent years the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved cancer therapies on the basis of improved progression-free survival (PFS), including several drugs for the treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Clinicians who treat kidney cancer patients are convinced that the agency made the right move, and some even contend that overall survival (OS) is no longer a useful endpoint in this disease setting.
However, despite some support for the use of PFS in one disease setting, its value as a standard endpoint for clinical trials remains a point of debate in oncology as a whole. Some experts argue that OS is the only time-to-event endpoint that shows true benefit to patients, whereas others think that PFS should be accepted as long as the trials are carried out according to rigorous standards. To hash out some of those issues, academic and industry statisticians gathered Oct. 7–9 for the Progression-Free Survival
The Case for PFS
The Debate
Building Better Consensus