European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2025
Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in gastro-esophageal cancer trials with immunotherapy: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leone Alberto Giovanni, Petrelli Fausto, Klempner Samuel J, Smyth Elizabeth C, Sundar Raghav, Lordick Florian, Lorenzen Sylvie, Masetti Micheal, Obermannova Radka, Alsina Maria, Janjigian Yelena Y, Pietrantonio Filippo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-based regimens are the first-line standard of care for most patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The efficacy of these treatments often depend on PD-L1 expression levels. Overall survival (OS) has traditionally been the primary endpoint for evaluating treatment efficacy. Through a meta-analysis, we investigated whether progression-free survival (PFS) is a valid surrogate for OS in the ICIs-era, overall and across different PD-L1 subgroups.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published by 30/06/2025. Trial-level surrogacy of PFS for OS was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient (R) and weighted linear regression, calculating the coefficient of determination (R2).
RESULTS: Eighteen eligible RCTs were evaluated. Regarding GEA, the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and on OS was moderate in the overall population (R=0.82; R2=0.52) and in the CPS≥ 1 subgroup (R=0.81; R2=0.66), moderate yet non-significant in the CPS< 1 subgroup (R=0.67; R2=0.51), and strong in the CPS≥ 5 subgroup (R=0.77; R2=0.85). In ESCC, the correlation in the overall population was weak (R=0.64; R2=0.47). No improvement of the correlation was found in the subgroup of patients with CPS≥ 10 (R=0.33; R2=0.16) or TPS≥ 1 % (R=0.40, R2=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: While the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS was weak in ESCC, it was moderate in PD-L1-low GEA, and good in PD-L1-high GEA. Therefore, PFS is an adequate co-primary endpoint in future trials investigating novel ICIs-based regimens in GEA, especially if the analyses are pre-planned in PD-L1-high subgroups.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published by 30/06/2025. Trial-level surrogacy of PFS for OS was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient (R) and weighted linear regression, calculating the coefficient of determination (R2).
RESULTS: Eighteen eligible RCTs were evaluated. Regarding GEA, the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and on OS was moderate in the overall population (R=0.82; R2=0.52) and in the CPS≥ 1 subgroup (R=0.81; R2=0.66), moderate yet non-significant in the CPS< 1 subgroup (R=0.67; R2=0.51), and strong in the CPS≥ 5 subgroup (R=0.77; R2=0.85). In ESCC, the correlation in the overall population was weak (R=0.64; R2=0.47). No improvement of the correlation was found in the subgroup of patients with CPS≥ 10 (R=0.33; R2=0.16) or TPS≥ 1 % (R=0.40, R2=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: While the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS was weak in ESCC, it was moderate in PD-L1-low GEA, and good in PD-L1-high GEA. Therefore, PFS is an adequate co-primary endpoint in future trials investigating novel ICIs-based regimens in GEA, especially if the analyses are pre-planned in PD-L1-high subgroups.