In Reply We thank Dafni et al for their comments. Our intent was not to invalidate but to empirically explore the measurement characteristics of the frameworks.1 We also did not state that restricted mean survival time (RMST) is the “gold standard” measure for absolute survival. Restricted mean survival time was included in our primary analysis owing to its advantage over median survival in capturing the entire survival distribution. Recognizing that RMST is not currently widely reported, we included an additional comparison with median survival that confirmed a moderate correlation with the European Society for Medical Oncology’s preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grades (ESMO-PMCBGs). Acknowledging that RMST calculations by reviewers may be subject to interrater variability, we advocated for direct reporting of RMST by clinical trial investigators with access to individual patient data.1
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.
Saluja R, Cheung M, Chan KKW. Correcting the Conclusion in a Study of Frameworks for Measurement of Absolute or Clinical Benefit—In Reply. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1807–1808. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4132
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.