|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abstract
Highlights
- •
- Clinicians have debated the selection of ovarian clinical trial endpoints.
- •
- Optimal endpoint selection should reflect true patient benefit.
- •
- We surveyed patients to ascertain what constitutes meaningful gains in clinical trials.
Objective
In
order to understand the patient's perspective in regards to meaningful
surrogate clinical trial endpoints and the impact of treatment-related
toxicity, and quality of life, we surveyed women with gynecological
cancers to ascertain their preferences.
Methods
A 28-question anonymous online survey was posted on the OCNA website (www.ovariancancer.org).
Survey questions included demographic factors, tumor data, and
patients' preference regarding side effects and therapy endpoints. Data
was analyzed for frequency and percentage of each response. Student
t-test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sums were preformed.
Results
There
were 1413 survey responses. Participants reported that for a new agent
to be meaningful, the minimum extension of progression-free survival
(PFS) and overall survival (OS) should be five or more months, 77% and
85% of the time, respectively. Most subjects (55%, n = 612) were
interested in an agent that would keep tumor growth relatively static
without change in OS. Addressing the impact of adverse aspects from a
hypothetical new agent as a function of response, there was significant
migration (P < 0.0001) to acceptance of greater toxicity
and cost under the scenario of a 5–6 months OS gain, despite three-fold
higher neurotoxicity, as compared to a PFS gain of 3–4 months/no OS
without toxicity. Response patterns weren't altered by recurrence
status.
Conclusions
Herein, we
show that magnitude of outcome is a desired effect, even given the
prospect of significant toxicity and cost. However, these preferences
appear to differ between those with primary and recurrent disease.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.