scholarly journals Evaluation of End Points in Cancer Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 745-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Yin ◽  
Suzanne E. Dahlberg ◽  
Sumithra J. Mandrekar
2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (32) ◽  
pp. 5051-5057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Watkins Bruner ◽  
Charlene J. Bryan ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
C. Craig Blackmore ◽  
Michael Brundage ◽  
...  

Purpose The objective of this report is to provide a historical overview of and the issues and challenges inherent in the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into multinational cancer clinical trials in the cancer cooperative groups. Methods An online survey of 12 cancer cooperative groups from the United States, Canada, and Europe was conducted between June and August of 2006. Each of the cooperative groups designated one respondent, who was a member of one of the PRO committees within the cooperative group. Results There was a 100% response rate, and all of the cancer clinical trial cooperative groups reported conducting PRO research. PRO research has been conducted in the cancer cooperative groups for an average of 15 years (range, 6 to 30 years), and all groups had multidisciplinary committees focused on the design of PRO end points and the choice of appropriate PRO measures for cancer clinical trials. The cooperative groups reported that 5% to 50% of cancer treatment trials and an estimated 50% to 75% of cancer control trials contained PRO primary and secondary end points. There was considerable heterogeneity among the cooperative groups with respect to the formal and informal policies and procedures or cooperative group culture towards PROs, investigator training/mentorship, and resource availability for the measurement and conduct of PRO research within the individual cooperatives. Conclusion The challenges faced by the cooperative groups to the incorporation of PROs into cancer clinical trials are varied. Some common opportunities for improvement include the adoption of standardized training/mentorship mechanisms for investigators for the conduct of PRO assessments and data collection and the development of minimal criteria for PRO measure acceptability. A positive cultural shift has occurred in most of the cooperative groups related to the incorporation of PROs in clinical trials; however, financial and other resource barriers remain and need to be addressed.


1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 2004-2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
L A Kalish ◽  
M B Garnick ◽  
J P Richie

Many protocols for treatment of superficial bladder cancer include periodic cystoscopic examinations with resection of visible lesions. This allows pathological restaging of the disease at each examination. For example, this type of follow-up is common in clinical trials evaluating intravesical therapies. In such trials, clinical outcome is typically summarized using end-points that measure failure to control superficial disease. Alternative endpoints measuring failure to prevent progression to invasive disease are often ignored. In this report, the rationale for ignoring the invasive disease endpoints is given and flaws in the rationale are described. Evidence from actual data sets support the view that superficial disease endpoints may not be appropriate surrogates for invasive disease endpoints. It is recommended that time to invasive disease should be considered a major endpoint when designing and analyzing trials in superficial bladder cancer.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2392-2398 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kramar ◽  
S. Negrier ◽  
R. Sylvester ◽  
S. Joniau ◽  
P. Mulders ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (24) ◽  
pp. 3572-3575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Allegra ◽  
Charles Blanke ◽  
Marc Buyse ◽  
Richard Goldberg ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel W. Neal ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
Alice T. Shaw

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 2127-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Hudis ◽  
William E. Barlow ◽  
Joseph P. Costantino ◽  
Robert J. Gray ◽  
Kathleen I. Pritchard ◽  
...  

Purpose Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. Methods A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. Conclusion The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document