
==== Front
eClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine
eClinicalMedicine
2589-5370
Elsevier

S2589-5370(24)00412-7
10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102833
102833
Viewpoint
Outcomes that matter to patients with cancer: living longer and living better
Tregear Michelle mtregear@stopbreastcancer.org
∗
Visco Fran
National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, DC, USA
∗ Corresponding author. 2001 L Street NW Suite 500 PMB#50111, Washington, DC, 20036. mtregear@stopbreastcancer.org
11 9 2024
10 2024
11 9 2024
76 1028332 2 2024
7 8 2024
29 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Summary

Oncologists and cancer patients generally agree that the primary goals of advanced cancer treatment are to lengthen and/or improve patient survival. Yet over the last two decades, clinical trials of new cancer treatments have moved away from measuring outcomes that matter to patients. Increasingly, new drugs for advanced cancer treatment reach the market by demonstrating improvements in surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a measure of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Research has shown that when patients are fully informed about the meaning of PFS, about half would not choose additional treatment for any magnitude of gain in PFS in the absence of an overall survival improvement. It's time to get back to designing trials that answer clinically meaningful questions and measure the outcomes that truly matter to patients. Engaging educated patient advocates in meaningful ways in clinical trial design and reporting would be a step in this direction.

Keywords

Oncology clinical trial endpoints
Patient centered outcomes research
Patient preferences
Progression-free survival
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Oncologists and cancer patients generally agree that the primary goals of cancer treatment are to lengthen survival and, especially in the advanced disease setting, to improve quality of life.1,2 Yet over the last two decades, clinical trials of new cancer treatments have moved away from measuring outcomes that matter to patients.

Until the early 2000s, overall survival was the predominant endpoint in clinical trials of new cancer drugs. Today, however, most cancer drugs and biologics come to market based on clinical trials that use surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) to demonstrate benefit.3,4 Patients and the public must understand what actual benefit if any these surrogate endpoints mean for their lives. To help ensure this, we need public education on this issue, and educated patient advocates who represent a constituency need to play meaningful roles in the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials.

Defining progression-free survival, its advantages, and limitations

Despite what the term implies, PFS is not a measure of clinical benefit: how a patient feels or functions, or how long they survive.5 PFS is one of a number of tumor response metrics adopted to help standardize measures of anticancer activity in clinical research among varying investigators and institutions.6,7 Moertel and Hanley were among the first to investigate oncologists’ ability to detect tumor progression and shrinkage using simulated tumors (marbles of varying size) placed under simulated skin (mattress covered in rubber foam).8 They reported that erroneous measures of tumor progression and regression were minimized when simulated tumors increased in diameter by at least 25 percent or shrunk by at least 75 percent.

Today, PFS is defined according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors first published in 2000 and updated in 2009. It represents the time from randomization or the initiation of treatment to measurable disease progression (typically by radiographic assessment in solid tumors) or death, with progression being defined as a relative increase in the sum of maximum tumor diameters of at least 20 percent (absolute increase of at least 5 mm), the development of any new lesions, or an unequivocal increase in non-measurable malignant disease (e.g., bone metastases).9

PFS was developed to support the advancement of drugs in Phase 2 clinical trials to Phase 3 testing, not to serve as a measure of clinical benefit to patients.6,7 Indeed, patients may not even perceive a deterioration in their health status when their tumor has progressed based on the definition above.

There are multiple arguments for the growing use of PFS as the primary endpoint in Phase 3 advanced/metastatic cancer clinical trials.10 PFS can be measured more quickly and with smaller patient sample sizes than overall survival, thereby speeding the delivery of new anti-cancer agents to patients and theoretically lowering the cost of development. Additionally, unlike overall survival, PFS is not confounded by subsequent lines of treatment following disease progression. Moreover, PFS or “stable disease” can also have intrinsic value to some patients.

While PFS improvements sometimes translate into improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life, often, this is not the case. PFS has routinely failed to demonstrate a strong correlation with overall survival11,12 or quality of life13 in systematic reviews and validation studies across many different cancer types. In some instances, increases in PFS have been accompanied by shortened survival.14,15 In addition to not providing a measure of clinical benefit, PFS is also subject to various forms of bias (e.g., measurement error, assessment bias, informative censoring, and intermittent assessment of progression bias) that either do not exist or are less likely to occur (in the case of informative censoring) when measuring overall survival.16, 17, 18, 19 And while the 20 percent increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions is widely accepted as the definition of disease progression, there is still the potential for terminating a drug early based on a false identification of disease progression (because of measurement error), especially when tumor burden is low.20 Despite this, the use of PFS as an endpoint for regulatory approval of cancer drugs is now widespread.

Patient perspectives on the value of progression-free survival

While there is much debate among the oncology community about the increasing use of PFS as a primary endpoint in clinical trials,21,22 it is critically important to consider how patients interpret and understand this endpoint, and once fully informed of its meaning, the value they place on PFS compared with other endpoints.

Studies have demonstrated that patients with cancer (and the general public for that matter) are unfamiliar with many of the endpoints utilized in cancer trials,23, 24, 25 often confusing PFS and objective response rates with improvements in overall survival. Studies have also demonstrated that patients and the general public alike have difficulty accurately interpreting results described in drug labels and/or direct-to-consumer marketing.26,27 This poses a challenge for studies that aim to assess how patients value different endpoints such as PFS. However, when patients are queried specifically about their goals for treatment in the advanced cancer setting, it's clear that patients place the most value on living longer and maintaining a reasonable quality of life, if not a cure.28

A robust assessment of patients' valuation of PFS requires that patients have an unambiguous understanding of the distinction between PFS and clinically meaningful endpoints such as overall survival and quality of life. Unfortunately, a 2019 systematic review29 of available literature on the topic demonstrated that this has generally not been the case. To address this limitation in available research on this question, a 2023 study30 attempted to measure the value that patients place on PFS, particularly in the absence of overall survival gains, after being fully briefed on the meaning of PFS. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the investigators demonstrated that when confronted with unambiguous discrete choice scenarios, approximately half of patients would not choose additional treatment for any magnitude of gain in PFS in the absence of an overall survival improvement. However, a smaller subset of patients in this study (∼17%) indicated they would accept additional treatment with mild or moderate toxicity even in the absence of a PFS benefit, showcasing the complexity of patients’ views on this endpoint and during treatment decision-making in the context of a terminal illness.

Additionally, most studies exploring patients' evaluations of PFS and other endpoints query patients at a single time point, and patients’ preferences, values, and expectations are likely to change over the course of their treatment experience, and with increased exposure to clinical, financial, and time toxicity.31

Indeed, a 2018 longitudinal study (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival; AVALPROFS)32 queried advanced-stage patients at multiple time points and demonstrated that patients were significantly less likely to value cancer control strategies with increasing exposure to toxic treatments that reduce their quality of life.

Involving educated patient advocates in the clinical research continuum

Educated patient advocate voices must be included in clinical research to ensure new treatments address patients' goals and values, particularly for terminal illnesses and unmet needs, and numerous initiatives to this end have emerged. For example, driven in part by mandates outlined in the 21st Century Cures Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has formed a number of patient engagement initiatives33 and released guidance for industry on patient engagement in clinical trials.34 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated the development of a quasi-governmental agency, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which emphasizes the engagement of patients and other stakeholders in the research process. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) supports patient advocate involvement in research through its Office of Advocacy Relations and the federally funded National Clinical Trials Network engages patient advocates in a variety of capacities in clinical trials research at the network level and individual participating academic sites. Patient advocates also have increasing involvement in the peer review process for both Federally funded (e.g., Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and to a lesser degree, the NCI) and non-profit funding cancer research sectors, thereby helping shape the research that is conducted.

Patient participation has been a tenet of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) since its inception in 1991. But NBCC has also long recognized that patient participation alone is not sufficient. Patient advocates must be thoroughly educated and informed if they are to be involved in influencing systems-level decision making. NBCC continues to work to ensure that educated patient advocates who represent a constituency have a meaningful “seat at the table” in all levels of healthcare decision-making that affects their lives. Educated patient advocates with lived experience provide a unique perspective that others cannot offer. They are the ones who ultimately receive and pay for healthcare services and, along with their families, are required to navigate the complexities of the health insurance and healthcare delivery systems.

Along with a right to meaningful participation in clinical trials comes a responsibility to be educated. Advocates must be knowledgeable and confident to participate in the decision-making process of science and healthcare. They must understand how to critically appraise information, and how to evaluate evidence, especially in the context of clinical trials, drug approval, and other public health issues that impact society. NBCC was a pioneer in designing training programs to prepare lay patient advocates for this role. First developed in 1995, NBCC's Project LEAD®35 is an intensive science course that teaches breast cancer advocates the basic language and concepts critical to understanding scientific research including clinical trials research. A host of other advocacy training initiatives have since formed with the intent of bringing educated patient advocate voices to the clinical research continuum (e.g., Fight Colorectal Cancer's Research Advocacy and Training Supports [RATS] program, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer's Supportive Training for Advocates on Research and Science program [STARS], the American Association for Cancer Research's Scientist ↔ Survivor Program, and the Cancer Research UK VOICE Vision On Information, Confidence and Engagement [VOICE] Science for Patient Advocates training program, among others).

The key objectives of educated patient engagement in all levels of clinical research are ultimately to inform the research agenda, set research priorities, and ensure patient-centered clinical trial design, all while keeping the healthcare and research communities laser focused on the urgency that patients face. At present, the impact of patient engagement in clinical research remains unclear and is difficult to measure, but engaging patients is increasingly viewed as central to delivering patient centered health care.36, 37, 38

Conclusion

Clinical trial research over the past two decades has moved away from measuring what really matters to patients, resulting in a system that increasingly delivers more drugs with little evidence of clinical benefit. It's time to get back to designing trials that answer clinically meaningful questions and measure the outcomes that truly matter for patients' lives. Engaging educated patient advocates in meaningful ways in clinical trial design and reporting would be a step in this direction. We are all desperate to find interventions that will save or significantly prolong lives without reducing the quality of life. We should not redefine progress to include what can be measured in the short term, rather than what is ultimately the most meaningful for patients.

Contributors

MT and FV developed and contributed to this manuscript. MT prepared the first draft in consultation with FV. FV read successive drafts, made suggestions to improve, and contributed references. Both authors read and approved the final draft.

Declaration of interests

Neither author has any conflicts of interests to report.

Acknowledgements

No funding was received to support the preparation of this manuscript.
==== Refs
References

1 Shrestha A. Martin C. Burton M. Walters S. Collins K. Wyld L. Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: a systematic literature review Psychooncology 28 7 2019 1367 1380 30838697
2 Marta G.N. Del Nero L.G. Marta G.N. Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better? Clinics (Sao Paulo) 69 8 2014 509 514 25141108
3 Del Paggio J.C. Berry J.S. Hopman W.M. Evolution of the randomized clinical trial in the era of precision oncology JAMA Oncol 7 5 2021 728 734 33764385
4 Kay A. Higgins J. Day A.G. Meyer R.M. Booth C.M. Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points Ann Oncol 23 6 2012 1646 1651 22048151
5 Gyawali B. Eisenhauer E. Tregear M. Booth C.M. Progression-free survival: it is time for a new name Lancet Oncol 23 3 2022 328 330 35240080
6 WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment 1979 World Health Organization Geneva 45
7 Therasse P. Arbuck S.G. Eisenhauer E.A. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European organization for research and treatment of cancer, national cancer Institute of the United States, national cancer Institute of Canada J Natl Cancer Inst 92 3 2000 205 216 10655437
8 Moertel C.G. Hanley J.A. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer Cancer 38 1 1976 388 394 947531
9 Eisenhauer E.A. Therasse P. Bogaerts J. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer 45 2 2009 228 247 19097774
10 Zhang J. Pilar M.R. Wang X. Endpoint surrogacy in oncology Phase 3 randomised controlled trials Br J Cancer 123 3 2020 333 334 32451466
11 Belin L. Tan A. De Rycke Y. Dechartres A. Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review Br J Cancer 122 11 2020 1707 1714 32214230
12 Haslam A. Hey S.P. Gill J. Prasad V. A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology Eur J Cancer 106 2019 196 211 30528804
13 Gutman S.I. Piper M. Grant M.D. Basch E. Oliansky D.M. Aronson N. Progression-free survival: what does it mean for psychological well-being or quality of life? AHRQ methods for effective health care Rockville (MD) 2013
14 Kumar S. Rajkumar S.V. Surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trials: a reality check Lancet 394 10195 2019 281 283 31354129
15 Telaraja D. Gormley N. Pazdur R. Approvals in 2022: overall survival, dose optimization, new approvals and beyond Nat Rev Clin Oncol 20 4 2023 207 208 36823362
16 Sridhara R. Mandrekar S.J. Dodd L.E. Missing data and measurement variability in assessing progression-free survival endpoint in randomized clinical trials Clin Cancer Res 19 10 2013 2613 2620 23669421
17 Templeton A.J. Amir E. Tannock I.F. Informative censoring - a neglected cause of bias in oncology trials Nat Rev Clin Oncol 17 6 2020 327 328 32273582
18 Gilboa S. Pras Y. Mataraso A. Bomze D. Markel G. Meirson T. Informative censoring of surrogate end-point data in phase 3 oncology trials Eur J Cancer 153 2021 190 202 34186504
19 Zeng L. Cook R.J. Wen L. Boruvka A. Bias in progression-free survival analysis due to intermittent assessment of progression Stat Med 34 24 2015 3181 3193 26011411
20 Kuhl C.K. Alparslan Y. Schmoee J. Validity of RECIST version 1.1 for response assessment in metastatic cancer: a prospective, multireader study Radiology 290 2 2019 349 356 30398433
21 Postmus D. Litiere S. Bogaerts J. Versluis J. Cornelissen J.J. Pignatti F. Attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival as endpoint in the advanced cancer setting Eur J Cancer 197 2024 113496
22 Bergmann T.K. Christensen M.M.H. Henriksen D.P. Haastrup M.B. Damkier P. Progression-free survival in oncology: caveat emptor! Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 124 3 2019 240 244 30417586
23 von Itzstein M.S. Railey E. Smith M.L. Patient familiarity with, understanding of, and preferences for clinical trial endpoints and terminology Cancer 126 8 2020 1605 1613 31967687
24 Mertz S. Benjamin C. Girvalaki C. Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: the patient perspective Breast 65 2022 84 90 35870420
25 Boudewyns V. Southwell B.G. DeFrank J.T. Patients' understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: a literature review Patient Educ Couns 103 9 2020 1724 1735 32273145
26 Sullivan H.W. O'Donoghue A.C. Boudewyns V. Paquin R.S. Ferriola-Bruckenstein K. Patient understanding of oncology clinical trial endpoints in direct-to-consumer television advertising Oncologist 28 7 2023 e542 e553 37079495
27 Sullivan H.W. O'Donoghue A.C. Ferriola-Bruckenstein K. Tzeng J.P. Boudewyns V. Patients' understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: environmental scan and focus groups Oncologist 25 12 2020 1060 1066 32799406
28 DeMartini J. Fenton J.J. Epstein R. Patients' hopes for advanced cancer treatment J Pain Symptom Manage 57 1 2019 57 63.e2 30261227
29 Raphael M.J. Robinson A. Booth C.M. The value of progression-free survival as a treatment end point among patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and qualitative assessment of the literature JAMA Oncol 5 12 2019 1779 1789 31556921
30 Brundage M.D. Booth C.M. Eisenhauer E.A. Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival J Natl Cancer Inst 115 12 2023 1526 1534 37458509
31 Johnson W.V. Blaes A.H. Booth C.M. Ganguli I. Gupta A. The unequal burden of time toxicity Trends Cancer 9 5 2023 373 375 36828772
32 Jenkins V. Farewell V. May S. Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient's perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the 'VALue' to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study Support Care Cancer 26 11 2018 3941 3949 29845422
33 FDA patient engagement overview Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-fda-patient-engagement/fda-patient-engagement-overview
34 FDA Patient engagement in the design and conduct of medical device clinical studies. Guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders https://www.fda.gov/media/130917/download2022
35 National breast cancer coalition - Project LEAD [10/14/2023] Available from: https://www.stopbreastcancer.org/what-we-do/education/project-lead/
36 Wale J.L. Hamerlijnck D. Perspective chapter: patient advocacy - from a seat at the table to equal stakeholders Tavares AI Economics of healthcare, studies and cases 2024
37 Solomon M.Z. Gusmano M.K. Maschke K.J. The ethical imperative and moral challenges of engaging patients and the public with evidence Health Aff (Millwood) 35 4 2016 583 589 27044955
38 Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology N Engl J Med 369 5 2013 397 400 23822654
