Zhang J.J.,Office of Biostatistics Office of Translational science |
Zhang J.J.,Gilead Sciences |
Zhang L.,Office of Biostatistics Office of Translational science |
Chen H.,Office of Biostatistics Office of Translational science |
And 4 more authors.
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2013
As progression-free survival (PFS) has become increasingly used as the primary endpoint in oncology phase III trials, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has generally required a complete-case blinded independent central review (BICR) of PFS to assess and reduce potential bias in the investigator or local site evaluation. However, recent publications and FDA analyses have shown a high correlation between local site evaluation and BICR assessments of the PFS treatment effect, which questions whether complete-case BICR is necessary. One potential alternative is to use BICR as an audit tool to detect evaluation bias in the local site evaluation. In this article, the performance characteristics of two audit methods proposed in the literature are evaluated on 26 prospective, randomized phase III registration trials in nonhematologic malignancies. The results support that a BICR audit to assess potential bias in the local site evaluation is a feasible approach. However, implementation and logistical challenges need further consideration and discussion. © 2013 AACR. Source