GEN Exclusives

More »

GEN Poll

More »
Dec 13, 2011

OS vs. PFS

FDA’s success in removing Avastin’s metastatic breast cancer (MBC) indication has sparked a longstanding debate in drug development circles: Should the primary endpoint for regulatory sanction remain overall survival (OS) or should it change to progression-free survival (PFS)? In Avastin’s case, initial accelerated approval, in combination with paclitaxel, for MBC was based on PFS data. But last year FDA’s CDER recommended that MBC be withdrawn since subsequent studies showed only a small improvement in OS. FDA also noted that Avastin’s PFS improvement was not worth the risk of associated side effects. Avastin maker Genentech and parent Roche countered that PFS should be the primary endpoint, because it could be objectively measured and because the EU recognized it as an oncology endpoint. Where do you stand?

Should the primary endpoint for approval of cancer drugs change to progression-free survival from overall survival?

Yes
 
  42.1%
No
 
  42.1%
Undecided
 
  15.8%

Related content

Jobs

GEN Jobs powered by HireLifeScience.com connects you directly to employers in pharma, biotech, and the life sciences. View 40 to 50 fresh job postings daily or search for employment opportunities including those in R&D, clinical research, QA/QC, biomanufacturing, and regulatory affairs.
 Searching...
More »

Be sure to take the GEN Poll

Using CRISPRs to Tame GMOs

With more climate-induced droughts and insect infestations on the horizon do you think technologies like CRISPR will change a lot of people’s minds about GMOs, including genetically engineered foods?

More »