[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 156
Citations 0
Comment & Response
October 17, 2019

Correcting the Conclusion in a Study of Frameworks for Measurement of Absolute or Relative Clinical Survival Benefit

Author Affiliations
  • 1National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
  • 2Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
  • 3University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
JAMA Oncol. Published online October 17, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4091

To the Editor Saluja et al1 evaluated the correlation of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Value Framework (ASCO-VF) with absolute and relative survival measures, including the algorithmically calculated restricted mean survival time (RMST) derived from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Their conclusion regarding the shared inadequacy of ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS is based heavily on an unsubstantiated premise regarding RMST as a gold standard for evaluating survival benefit, and it is inconsistent with the results.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words