European Medicines Agency. Appendix 1 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. 2012. EMA/CHMP/27994/2008/Rev.1. Available at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-scientific-guideline

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry. 2018. Available at https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download

Fleming TR, Rothmann MD, Lu HL. Issues in using progression-free survival when evaluating oncology products. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2874–80.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Freidlin B, Korn EL, Hunsberger S. others. Proposal for the use of progression-free survival in unblinded randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25:2122–2126. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6198

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Trial Imaging Endpoint Process Standards: Guidance for Industry. 2018. Available at https://www.fda.gov/media/81172/download

Dodd LE, Korn EL, Freidlin B. others. Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: important design element or unnecessary expense? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3791–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.1711.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Korn EL, Freidlin B, Abrams JS. Overall survival as the outcome for randomized clinical trials with effective subsequent therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2439–42.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

ICH E9(R1). Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials to the Guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. 2019. Accessed 2025-02-04. Available at https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E9-R1_Step4_Guideline_2019_1203.pdf

Akacha M, Bretz F, Ruberg S. Estimands in clinical trials broadening the perspective. Stat Med. 2017;36:5–19.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ratitch B, Bell J, Mallinckrodt Cothers. Choosing estimands in clinical trials: putting the ICH E9(R1) into practice. Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54:324–41.

Google Scholar 

Mallinckrodt C, Bell J, Liu Gothers. Aligning estimators with estimands in clinical trials: putting the ICH E9(R1) guidelines into practice. Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54:353–64.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Fleming T, Carroll K, Wittes J, et al. A perspective on the appropriate implementation of ICH E9(R1) addendum strategies for handling intercurrent events. Stat Med. 2025;44(10–12):1857–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9927.

Article  Google Scholar 

Sun S, Weber HJ, Butler E, Rufibach K, Roychoudhury S. Estimands in hematologic oncology trials. Pharm Stat. 2021;20(4):793–805. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2108.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Siegel JMothers. Time-to-event estimands and loss to follow-up in oncology in light of the estimands guidance. Pharm Stat. 2024;23(5):709–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2386.

Fleischer F, Gaschler-Markefski B, Bluhmki E. How is retrospective independent review influenced by investigator-introduced informative censoring: a quantitative approach. Stat Med. 2011;30:3373–86.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Manitz J, Kan-Dobrosky N, Buchner Hothers. Estimands for overall survival in clinical trials with treatment switching in oncology. Pharm Stat. 2022;21(1):150–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2158.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rodriguez LR, Gormley NJ, Lu Rothers. Improving collection and analysis of overall survival data. Clin Cancer Res. 2024;30(18):3974–82. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-0919.

Fojo T, Amiri-Kordestani L, Bates SE. Potential pitfalls of crossover and thoughts on Iniparib in triple-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(23):1738–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr386.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Harmonised Guideline: Good Clinical Practice E6(R3). https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_E6%28R3%29_Step4_FinalGuideline_2025_0106.pdf; 2025. Final version adopted at Step4 by the ICH Assembly.

ICH. General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1). 2021. Accessed 2025-02-04. Available at https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E8-R1_Guideline_Step4_2021_1006.pdf

Fink S. Sensitivity Analyses for Informative Censoring in Time-to-Event Clinical Trials. Master’s thesis. Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich. 2015. Available at https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25582/1/MA_FinkSimon.pdf Accessed: 2025-02-04.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J. others. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

Wallenstein S, Wittes J. The power of the mantelhaenszel test for grouped failure time data. Biometrics. 1993;49:1077–87.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Stone A, Wheeler C, Carroll K, others. Optimizing randomized phase II trials assessing tumor progression. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:146–52.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Ellingson BM, Gerstner ER, Lassman AB. others. Hypothetical generalized framework for a new imaging endpoint of therapeutic activity in early phase clinical trials in brain tumors. Neurooncology. 2022;24(8):1219–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noac086.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, et al. Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomised cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):281–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.042.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

San-Miguel JF, Hungria VT, Yoon SS, editors. others. Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(11):1195–1206. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):e6. PMID: 2524204510.1016/S1470-2045(14)70440-1

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Slides for Panorama-1 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ODAC Meeting. 2014. Available at https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170114013523/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM424045.pdf

Ford R, ONeal M, Moskowitz S, Fraunberger J. Adjudication rates between readers in blinded independent central review of oncology studies. J Clin Trials. 2016;6:289. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0870.1000289.

Article  Google Scholar 

Schmid A, Raunig D, Miller C, et al. Radiologists and clinical trials: part 1 the truth about reader disagreements. Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-021-00330-w.

Article  Google Scholar 

Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H. others. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;16(6):e270–e278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70057-4

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document, Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting., October 5, 2023, NDA 214665 s005, Sotorasib, Amgen, Inc. 2023. Available at Accessed: 2025-02-04. https://www.fda.gov/media/172696/download

Zhao Y, Herring AH, Zhou H, Ali MW, Koch GG. A multiple imputation method for sensitivity analyses of time-to-event data with possibly informative censoring. J Biopharm Stat. 2014;24(2):229–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2013.860769.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sartor O, Bono dJ, Chi KN, et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic Castration-Resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):1091–103. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107322.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. SNDA/BLA Multi-disciplinary Review and Evaluation. NDA 215833. 2022. Available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2022/215833Orig1s000MultidisciplineR.pdf

Fallah J, Mulkey F, Fiero MH, et al. Equipoise lost?? Trial conduct challenges in an era of breakthrough therapies. J Clin Oncology: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2024;42(32):3783–7.

Google Scholar 

Weiss J, Goldschmidt J, Andric Zothers. Effects of trilaciclib on Chemotherapy-Induced myelosuppression and Patient-Reported outcomes in patients with Extensive-Stage small cell lung cancer: pooled results from three phase II randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled studies. Clin Lung Cancer. 2021;22(5):449–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2021.03.010.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Statistical Review and Evaluation Memorandum. NDA 214200. 2020. Available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/214200Orig1s000StatR.pdf

European Medicines Agency. Question and answer on adjustment for cross-over in estimating effects in oncology trials. 2018. Adopted by CHMP 13 December 2018. Available at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/question-answer-adjustment-cross-over-estimating-effects-oncology-trialsen.pdf

Robins JM, Finkelstein DM. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS clinical trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests. Biometrics. 2000;56(3):779–88.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Watkins C, Huang X, Latimer N, Tang Y, Wright EJ. Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical application. Pharm Stat. 2013;12(6):348–57.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Robins JM. Information recovery and bias adjustment in proportional hazards regression analysis of randomized trials using surrogate markers. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, Am Stat Assoc. 1993;24:3.

Latimer NR, White IR, Tilling K, Siebert U. Improved two-stage Estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29(10):2900–18.

PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for noncompliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Commun Statistics: Theory Methods. 1991;20(8):2609–31.

Google Scholar 

White I, Walker S, Babiker A, Darbyshire J. Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial. AIDS. 1997;11:999–1006.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

White I, Babiker A, Walker S, Darbyshire J. Randomisation-based methods for correcting for treatment changes: examples from the Concorde trial. Stat Med. 1999;18:2617–34.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Branson M, Whitehead J. Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment. Stat Med. 2002;21(17):2449–63.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ananthakrishnan R, Green S, Previtali A, Liu R, Li D, LaValley M. Critical review of oncology clinical trial design under non-proportional hazards. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2021;162:103350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103350.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Friends of Cancer Research. Interim Overall Survival Evaluations and Implications for Trial Designs and Analysis Plans. 2024. Available at https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/event/friends-of-cancer-research-annual-meeting-2024/