Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed.

Abstract

Composite outcome measures such as progression-free survival and disease-free survival are increasingly used as surrogate end points in oncology research, frequently serving as the primary end point of pivotal trials that form the basis for FDA and EMA approvals. Such outcome measures combine two or more distinct events (for example, tumour (re)growth, new lesions and/or death) into a single, time-to-event end point. The use of a composite end point can increase the statistical power of a clinical trial and decrease the follow-up period required to demonstrate efficacy, thus lowering costs; however, these end points have a number of limitations. Composite outcomes are often vaguely defined, with definitions that vary greatly between studies, complicating comparisons of results across trials. Altering the makeup of events included in a composite outcome can alter study conclusions, including whether treatment effects are statistically significant. Moreover, the events included in a composite outcome often vary in clinical significance, reflect distinct biological pathways and/or are affected differently by treatment. Therefore, knowing the precise breakdown of the component events is essential to accurately interpret trial results and gauge the true benefit of an intervention. In oncology clinical trials, however, such information is rarely provided. In this Perspective, we emphasize this deficiency through a review of 50 studies with progression-free survival as an outcome published in five top oncology journals, discuss the advantages and challenges of using composite end points, and highlight the need for transparent reporting of the component events.