In randomized controlled trials in oncology, changes in quality of life are usually reported together with a description of the differences considered a priori to be clinically important, but overall survival outcomes are rarely provided together with information of what constitutes a clinically meaningful threshold. In this Comment, we propose the benefits that could be derived from reporting overall survival in a similar way to quality of life.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Blome, C. & Augustin, M. Measuring change in quality of life: bias in prospective and retrospective evaluation. Value Health 18, 110–115 (2015).
Coleman, R. L. et al. Veliparib with first-line chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 2403–2415 (2019).
Hubner, R. A. et al. Quality of life in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. Eur. J. Cancer 106, 24–33 (2019).
Moore, M. J. et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 1960–1966 (2007).
Gyawali, B., Sharma, S. & Booth, C. M. Is the number of cancer drug approvals a surrogate for regulatory success? J. Cancer Policy 22, 100202 (2019).
Del Paggio, J. C. et al. Evolution of the randomized clinical trial in the era of precision oncology. JAMA Oncol. 7, 728–734 (2021).
Gyawali, B. & Kesselheim, A. S. FDA approval standards for anticancer agents — lessons from two recent approvals in breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18, 397–398 (2021).
Ellis, L. M. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: Raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1277–1280 (2014).
Templeton, A. J., Booth, C. M. & Tannock, I. F. Informing patients about expected outcomes: the efficacy–effectiveness gap. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 1651–1654 (2020).
Samuel, J. N. et al. Association of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer drug trials with survival outcomes and drug class. JAMA Oncol. 8, 879–886 (2022).
Acknowledgements
B.G. receives salary support from Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, funded by the government of Ontario. C.M.B. is supported by the Canada Research Chairs programme. The authors would like to thank M. Brundage (Queen’s Cancer Research Institute) for providing valuable comments and feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
B.G. has acted as a consultant for Vivio Health. C.M.B. declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gyawali, B., Booth, C.M. Defining clinically important overall survival thresholds: lessons from quality of life. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 613–614 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00667-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00667-5
