To the Editor We read with interest the recent Original Investigation by Reardon et al1 reporting results of the CheckMate 143 randomized clinical trial, which compared nivolumab with bevacizumab among patients with recurrent glioblastoma. For the end points of overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate, nivolumab was either inferior or neutral to bevacizumab. The only signal potentially favoring nivolumab was from the duration of response (DOR),1 as underscored in the accompanying Editorial.2 The reported median DORs were 11.1 and 5.3 months for nivolumab and bevacizumab, respectively. However, this comparison might not be appropriate because these 2 medians were based on the DORs among responders only, and the objective response rates of the 2 treatment groups differed substantially: 7.8% for nivolumab vs 23.1% for bevacizumab.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.
McCaw ZR, Tian L, Wei L. Appropriate Analysis of Duration of Response Data in Cancer Trials. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(12):1978. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4657
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: