[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Comment & Response
October 8, 2020

Appropriate Analysis of Duration of Response Data in Cancer Trials

Author Affiliations
  • 1Google, Mountain View, California
  • 2Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • 3Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(12):1978. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4657

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

Add or change institution