• All Topics
  • Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real-World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme
  • IRA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Israel

NICE enough? Do NICE’s Decision Outcomes Impact International HTA Decision-making?

andrew-butler-aUu8tZFNgfM-unsplash
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Gene therapies

Are Recommendations for HTA of Gene Therapies Being Achieved?

cover 3
Read more
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Dermatology

The Burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa on Patients, the NHS and Society

jakob-braun-HfOOKAPsE28-unsplash
Read more
  • Digital Health
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Mental Health

Dementia in the UK: Estimating the Potential Future Impact and Return on Research Investment

image option 1
Read more
  • Precision Medicine
  • Economics of Innovation

The Case for Expanding Uptake of Next-Generation Sequencing for Lung Cancer in Europe

NGS report_AdobeStock_406823942_portrait
Read more
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Economics of Innovation

A Novel Incentive Model for Uptake of Diagnostics to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance

Roche AMR diangostics_national-cancer-institute-2fyeLhUeYpg-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Real-World Evidence: Current Best Practice for Reimbursement Decision-Making

RWE_clay-banks-b5S4FrJb7yQ-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Delivering the Triple Win: A Value-Based Approach to Pricing

Triple_Win_AdobeStock_249059909_portrait_v2
Read more
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real-World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • IRA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • News
11 min read 4th September 2018

Progression-free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Overall Survival in Oncology

When should progression-free survival be used as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology? Uneven reporting of results – different definitions and methods of analysis, lack of rigour in applying methodology – make progress difficult.

Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email

When should progression-free survival be used as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology? A recent article in the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, co-authored by OHE Visiting Fellow Alastair Fischer, demonstrates that uneven reporting of results, different definitions and methods of analysis, and a lack of rigour in applying methodology, make progress difficult.

Most drug therapies in oncology to date cause solid tumours to shrink for a time, after which they begin to grow again. A way of understanding progression-free survival (PFS) is to consider the time from initiation of treatment until the tumour returns to its size at initiation. A PFS of a certain length of time for a particular patient could be expected (if other things remain unchanged) to lead to a similar increase in the length of their overall survival (OS), one of the main outcomes in oncology. However, OS may take many months or years to measure accurately, as it requires most or all patients to have died.

If PFS and OS were perfectly correlated, PFS could be substituted for OS, leading to quicker results and a smaller sample size from trials, with no reduction in accuracy for the estimate of OS. Given that perfect correlation will not be attained, use of PFS to measure OS will introduce error.

How low can the PFS-OS correlation be before the error nullifies the benefits that a perfect surrogate for OS would bring?

This is difficult to answer because, in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a new drug versus current care, PFS can be measured for each individual in the treatment group, but the change in OS cannot, because it is not known when the patient would have died without treatment. Thus, the only possible measure of the increase or decrease in OS because of treatment is to subtract the average length of subsequent survival in the control group from the average in the treatment group. Together with the average PFS from the treatment group, this forms a single observational pair from the trial. For a particular type of cancer, each of a number of trials contributes a single observational pair (average change in OS, average PFS) and from the distribution of such points the correlation between OS and PFS is estimated. To gain more observations, a different drug may be used as a treatment, and for some observations, the drug used in the control arm may also be changed. There is thus a trade-off between the lower random error from increasing the number of observations and an increase in heterogeneity, which is likely to bias the estimated correlation downwards.

We updated the work of Davis et al (2012) using the same methodology for comparability of results over the period 2012 to 2016. We found that there was little or no change in the factors at work in deciding the circumstances under which PFS was an adequate surrogate. The study confirmed Davis’ finding that the adequacy of the surrogate depends on

  • the stage of the tumour,
  • the line of treatment (first, second or subsequent),
  • whether crossovers are allowed, and
  • being unable to distinguish the residual effect of first-line treatment from the effects of subsequent treatments.

The paper also describes the way that the results of the reviewed studies have been analysed and reported. While usually adhering to reporting standards, the standard of scholarship in the literature appears sometimes to be questionable and the reporting of results haphazard. Criteria for what makes a good surrogate also differs from study to study. Researchers who analyse the PFS-OS relationship commonly complain that the definition of PFS appears to differ between trials. Treatment of outliers – a cause of unstable results – has often not been undertaken or has not been reported. The frequency of usage of the main statistical methodology for the adequacy of a surrogate (developed by Buyse and colleagues in 2000) has increased since 2012 but is still far short of 50% of studies. This method requires estimation of both trial level data (the single data-point pair per trial) and individual patient data (IPD) within trials. Yet the proportion of studies reporting the use of IPD remains at its pre-2012 level of 33%.

Ciani (2016) reports on efforts to improve reporting standards. Standardization, in the form of adhering to common definitions, statistical techniques and a checklist of necessary items in reporting results, would often be virtually costless. Despite such advances, it is likely that the use of surrogacy will remain controversial because, at the heart of the problem, the uncomfortable truth is that only a single summary data-point pair (average PFS, average OS) can be collected per trial, whatever the trial’s size.

Citation

Hernandez-Villafuerte, K., Fischer, A., and Latimer, N. 2018. Challenges and Methodologies in Using Progression Free Survival as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Oncology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34(3), pp.300-316. DOI

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • External Publications

Related News

  • News
  • September 2020

Assessing the Productivity Value of Vaccines in Health Technology Assessment: Worth a Shot?

Read more
  • News
  • September 2020

Establishing a Reasonable Price for an Orphan Drug

Read more
  • News
  • August 2020

Are Discount Rates Used in UK Vaccine Economic Evaluations Jeopardising Investment in Immunisation Programmes?

Read more
  • News
  • July 2020

NICE ‘Optimised’ Recommendations: What Do They Mean for Patient Access?

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in .

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!