Design of a clinical trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to test a less intensive treatment regimen.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Showing "similar efficacy" of a less intensive treatment typically requires a non-inferiority trial. Yet such trials may be challenging to design and conduct. In acute promyelocytic leukemia, great progress has been achieved with the introduction of targeted therapies, but toxicity remains a major clinical issue. There is a pressing need to show the favorable benefit/risk of less intensive treatment regimens. METHODS: We designed a clinical trial that uses generalized pairwise comparisons of five prioritized outcomes (alive and event-free at 2 years, grade 3/4 documented infections, differentiation syndrome, hepatotoxicity, and neuropathy) to confirm a favorable benefit/risk of a less intensive treatment regimen. We conducted simulations based on historical data and assumptions about the differences expected between the standard of care and the less intensive treatment regimen to calculate the sample size required to have high power to show a positive Net Treatment Benefit in favor of the less intensive treatment regimen. RESULTS: Across 10,000 simulations, average sample sizes of 260 to 300 patients are required for a trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to detect typical Net Treatment Benefits of 0.19 (interquartile range 0.14-0.23 for a sample size of 280). The Net Treatment Benefit is interpreted as a difference between the probability of doing better on the less intensive treatment regimen than on the standard of care, minus the probability of the opposite situation. A Net Treatment Benefit of 0.19 translates to a number needed to treat of about 5.3 patients (1/0.19 ≃ 5.3). CONCLUSION: Generalized pairwise comparisons allow for simultaneous assessment of efficacy and safety, with priority given to the former. The sample size required would be of the order of 300 patients, as compared with more than 700 patients for a non-inferiority trial using a margin of 4% against the less intensive treatment regimen for the absolute difference in event-free survival at 2 years, as considered here.

Minimization in randomized clinical trials.

In randomized trials, comparability of the treatment groups is ensured through allocation of treatments using a mechanism that involves some random element, thus controlling for confounding of the treatment effect. Completely random allocation ensures comparability between the treatment groups for all known and unknown prognostic factors. For a specific trial, however, imbalances in prognostic factors among the treatment groups may occur. Although accidental bias can be avoided in the presence of such imbalances by stratifying the analysis, most trialists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders prefer a balanced distribution of prognostic factors across the treatment groups. Some procedures attempt to achieve balance in baseline covariates, by stratifying the allocation for these covariates, or by dynamically adapting the allocation using covariate information during the trial (covariate-adaptive procedures). In this Tutorial, the performance of minimization, a popular covariate-adaptive procedure, is compared with two other commonly used procedures, completely random allocation and stratified blocked designs. Using individual patient data of 2 clinical trials (in advanced ovarian cancer and age-related macular degeneration), the procedures are compared in terms of operating characteristics (using asymptotic and randomization tests), predictability of treatment allocation, and achieved balance. Fifty actual trials of various sizes that applied minimization for treatment allocation are used to investigate the achieved balance. Implementation issues of minimization are described. Minimization procedures are useful in all trials but especially when (1) many major prognostic factors are known, (2) many centers of different sizes accrue patients, or (3) the trial sample size is moderate.

Trial Design for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Methodological Toolkit.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and cell-based products has revolutionized the treatment of various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. These agents have shown unprecedented response rates and long-term benefits in various settings. These clinical advances have also pointed to the need for new or adapted approaches to trial design and assessment of efficacy and safety, both in the early and late phases of drug development. Some of the conventional statistical methods and endpoints used in other areas of oncology appear to be less appropriate in immuno-oncology. Conversely, other methods and endpoints have emerged as alternatives. In this article, we discuss issues related to trial design in the early and late phases of drug development in immuno-oncology, with a focus on CPIs. For early trials, we review the most salient issues related to dose escalation, use and limitations of tumor response and progression criteria for immunotherapy, the role of duration of response as an endpoint in and of itself, and the need to conduct randomized trials as early as possible in the development of new therapies. For late phases, we discuss the choice of primary endpoints for randomized trials, review the current status of surrogate endpoints, and discuss specific statistical issues related to immunotherapy, including non-proportional hazards in the assessment of time-to-event endpoints, alternatives to the Cox model in these settings, and the method of generalized pairwise comparisons, which can provide a patient-centric assessment of clinical benefit and be used to design randomized trials.

Pathologic Complete Response and Individual Patient Prognosis After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Anti-Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Therapy of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) is strongly prognostic for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), and adapting postneoadjuvant therapy improves long-term outcomes for patients with HER2-positive disease not achieving pCR. We sought to investigate prognostic factors for EFS and OS among patients with and without pCR after neoadjuvant systemic treatment consisting of chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used individual data from 3,710 patients randomly assigned in 11 neoadjuvant trials for HER2-positive EBC with ≥100 patients enrolled, available data for pCR, EFS, and OS, and follow-up ≥3 years. We assessed baseline clinical tumor size (cT) and clinical nodal status (cN) as prognostic factors using stratified (by trial and treatment) Cox models separately for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative disease, and for patients who had pCR (pCR+; ypT0/is, ypN0) versus patients who did not achieve a pCR (pCR-). RESULTS: The median follow-up overall was 61.2 months. In pCR+ patients, cT and cN were significant independent prognostic factors for EFS, whereas only cT was a significant predictor for OS. In pCR- patients, cT, cN, and hormone receptor status were significant independent predictors for both EFS and OS. Regardless of hormone receptor status, cT, and cN, the 5-year EFS/OS rates were higher in pCR+ patients than in pCR- patients. In most subsets with regards to hormone receptor and pCR status, cT and cN were independent prognostic factors for both EFS and OS, including pCR+ patients. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that patients achieving pCR have far better survival outcomes than patients who do not. The traditional poor prognostic features, namely tumor size and nodal status, remain important even after a pCR.

Re-Evaluation of Pathologic Complete Response as a Surrogate for Event-Free and Overall Survival in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive, Early Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy Including Anti-Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Therapy.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete response (pCR) has prognostic importance and is frequently used as a primary end point, but doubts remain about its validity as a surrogate for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, early breast cancer. METHODS: We obtained individual-patient data from randomized trials of neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy that enrolled at least 100 patients, had data for pCR, EFS, and OS, and a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We quantified the patient-level association between pCR (defined as ypT0/Tis ypN0) and both EFS and OS using odds ratios (ORs, with ORs >1.00 indicating a benefit from achieving a pCR). We quantified the trial-level association between treatment effects on pCR and on EFS and OS using R2 (with values above 0.75 considered as indicating strong associations). RESULTS: Eleven of 15 eligible trials had data for analysis (3,980 patients, with a median follow-up of 62 months). Considering all trials, we found strong patient-level associations, with ORs of 2.64 (95% CI, 2.20 to 3.07) for EFS and 3.15 (95% CI, 2.38 to 3.91) for OS; however, trial-level associations were weak, with an unadjusted R2 of 0.23 (95% CI, 0 to 0.66) for EFS and 0.02 (95% CI, 0 to 0.17) for OS. We found qualitatively similar results when grouping trials according to different clinical questions, when analyzing only patients with hormone receptor-negative disease, and when using a more stringent definition of pCR (ypT0 ypN0). CONCLUSION: Although pCR may be useful for patient management, it cannot be considered as a surrogate for EFS or OS in neoadjuvant trials of HER2-positive, operable breast cancer.

The case against censoring of progression-free survival in cancer clinical trials - A pandemic shutdown as an illustration.

BACKGROUND: Missing data may lead to loss of statistical power and introduce bias in clinical trials. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on patient health care and on the conduct of cancer clinical trials. Although several endpoints may be affected, progression-free survival (PFS) is of major concern, given its frequent use as primary endpoint in advanced cancer and the fact that missed radiographic assessments are to be expected. The recent introduction of the estimand framework creates an opportunity to define more precisely the target of estimation and ensure alignment between the scientific question and the statistical analysis. METHODS: We used simulations to investigate the impact of two basic approaches for handling missing tumor scans due to the pandemic: a "treatment policy" strategy, which consisted in ascribing events to the time they are observed, and a "hypothetical" approach of censoring patients with events during the shutdown period at the last assessment prior to that period. We computed the power of the logrank test, estimated hazard ratios (HR) using Cox models, and estimated median PFS times without and with a hypothetical 6-month shutdown period with no patient enrollment or tumor scans being performed, varying the shutdown starting times. RESULTS: Compared with the results in the absence of shutdown, the "treatment policy" strategy slightly overestimated median PFS proportionally to the timing of the shutdown period, but power was not affected. Except for one specific scenario, there was no impact on the estimated HR. In general, the pandemic had a greater impact on the analyses using the "hypothetical" strategy, which led to decreased power and overestimated median PFS times to a greater extent than the "treatment policy" strategy. CONCLUSION: As a rule, we suggest that the treatment policy approach, which conforms with the intent-to-treat principle, should be the primary analysis to avoid unnecessary loss of power and minimize bias in median PFS estimates.

Surrogacy Beyond Prognosis: The Importance of "Trial-Level" Surrogacy.

Many candidate surrogate endpoints are currently assessed using a 2-level statistical approach, which consists in checking whether (1) the potential surrogate is associated with the final endpoint in individual patients and (2) the effect of treatment on the surrogate can be used to reliably predict the effect of treatment on the final endpoint. In some situations, condition (1) is fulfilled but condition (2) is not. We use concepts of causal inference to explain this apparently paradoxical situation, illustrating this review with 2 contrasting examples in operable breast cancer: the example of pathological complete response (pCR) and that of disease-free survival (DFS). In a previous meta-analysis, pCR has been shown to be a strong and independent prognostic factor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) after neoadjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer. Yet, in randomized trials, the effects of experimental treatments on pCR have not translated into predictable effects on EFS or OS, making pCR an "individual-level" surrogate, but not a "trial-level" surrogate. In contrast, DFS has been shown to be an acceptable surrogate for OS at both the individual and trial levels in early, HER2-positive breast cancer. The distinction between the prognostic and predictive roles of a tentative surrogate, not always made in the literature, avoids unnecessary confusion and allows better understanding of what it takes to validate a surrogate endpoint that is truly able to replace a final endpoint.

Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.

Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Patient Eligibility and Results for Brain Metastasis in Phase 3 Trials of Advanced Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Although brain metastases (BM) affect 5% of all breast cancer patients and 14% of those with metastatic disease, patients with BM are often excluded from participation in clinical trials. We conducted a structured assessment of the contemporary restrictions to enrolment of, and results for, patients with BM in phase 3 trials published over a period of 23 years in advanced breast cancer. METHODS: We used PubMed to search for completed randomized trials published between 01/98 and 12/20. For all eligible trials, two authors independently abstracted data on general characteristics of the studies and detailed information on patient eligibility regarding the presence of BM. RESULTS: We analyzed 210 trials, which enrolled 92,409 eligible patients. Of that total, 162 (77.1%) publications explicitly mentioned eligibility criteria related to the presence of BM and 75 (35.7%) trials reportedly allowed patients with BM, usually with restrictions related to prior brain treatment or stability of lesions. There was a significant increase over time in the percentages of trials allowing patients with BM (p < 0.001), and these trials were more frequently dedicated to HER2-positive or triple-negative disease (p = 0.001). Only 11 trials reported separate results for patients with BM at baseline. The direct treatment activity on BM was usually not reported, although in subgroup analyses the treatment effect in relative terms was usually better among patients with BM than in overall populations. CONCLUSION: Nearly 36% of phase 3 trials in advanced breast cancer over a 23-year period allowed patients with BM, and this practice is increasing over time. More research is needed to establish the activity of current and promising therapies in patients with BM.

Brazilian Validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group (QLG) Computerised Adaptive Tests (CAT) Core.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to validate the Brazilian version of EORTC CAT Core and compare the Brazilian results with those from the original European EORTC CAT Core validation study. METHODS: After validated translation, 168 cancer patients from Brazil receiving radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy was assessed. Translated EORTC CAT Core and all QLQ-C30 items were administered to patients using CHES (Computer-Based Health Evaluation System) before (T0) and after (T1) treatment initiation. The association between QLQ-C30 and CAT scores and ceiling/floor effects were estimated. Based on estimates of relative validity (cross-sectional, known-group differences and changes over time), relative sample-size requirements for CAT compared to QLQ-C30 were estimated. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between CAT and QLQ-C30 domains ranged from 0.63 to 0.93; except for dyspnoea, all coefficients were >0.82 (corresponding figures were 0.81-0.93 in the European study). On average across domains, floor/ceiling was reduced by 10% using CAT (9% in the European study) corresponding to a relative reduction of 32% (37% in the European study). Analyses of known-group validity and responsiveness indicated that, on average across domains, the sample-size requirements may be reduced by 17% using CAT rather than QLQ-C30, without loss of power (28% in the European study). The Brazilian sample had less symptom/quality of life impairment than the European sample, which likely explains the lower sample-size reduction using CAT when comparing with the European sample. CONCLUSIONS: The results in the Brazilian cohort were generally similar to those from the European sample and confirm the validity and usefulness of the EORTC CAT Core.

The Net Benefit of a treatment should take the correlation between benefits and harms into account.

OBJECTIVE: The assessment of benefits and harms from experimental treatments often ignores the association between outcomes. In a randomized trial, generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) can be used to assess a Net Benefit that takes this association into account. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We use GPC to analyze a fictitious trial of treatment versus control, with a binary efficacy outcome (response) and a binary toxicity outcome, as well as data from two actual randomized trials in oncology. In all cases, we compute the Net Benefit for scenarios with different orders of priority between response and toxicity, and a range of odds ratios (ORs) for the association between these outcomes. RESULTS: The GPC Net Benefit was quite different from the benefit/harm computed using marginal treatment effects on response and toxicity. In the fictitious trial using response as first priority, treatment had an unfavorable Net Benefit if OR < 1, but favorable if OR > 1. With OR = 1, the Net Benefit was 0. Results changed drastically using toxicity as first priority. CONCLUSION: Even in a simple situation, marginal treatment effects can be misleading. In contrast, GPC assesses the Net Benefit as a function of the treatment effects on each outcome, the association between outcomes, and individual patient priorities.

Evaluating the potential of relapse-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of melanoma with checkpoint inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Recent changes in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma have raised interest in confirming relapse-free survival (RFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). METHODS: We explore this issue with the meta-analytic framework, using individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 trial of ipilimumab and published results from other adjuvant trials. RESULTS: The individual patient data analysis results at a median follow-up of 5.3 years showed a strong association between RFS and OS at the patient level (ρ = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.87) and a moderate association at the trial level (R2 = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.08-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The trial-level association previously observed in interferon-based trials appeared to be maintained when the EORTC 18071 results were added to a regression analysis using published results from other trials. More data from adjuvant trials are required to confirm the strength of association between RFS and OS in this setting.

Central statistical monitoring of investigator-led clinical trials in oncology.

Investigator-led clinical trials are pragmatic trials that aim to investigate the benefits and harms of treatments in routine clinical practice. These much-needed trials represent the majority of all trials currently conducted. They are however threatened by the rising costs of clinical research, which are in part due to extensive trial monitoring processes that focus on unimportant details. Risk-based quality management focuses, instead, on "things that really matter". We discuss the role of central statistical monitoring as part of risk-based quality management. We describe the principles of central statistical monitoring, provide examples of its use, and argue that it could help drive down the cost of randomized clinical trials, especially investigator-led trials, whilst improving their quality.

Statistical aspects in adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials for gastrointestinal cancer in 2020: focus on time-to-event endpoints.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical-trial design, analysis, and interpretation entails the use of efficient and reliable endpoints. Statistical issues related to endpoints warrant continued attention, as they may have a substantial impact on the conduct of clinical trials and on interpretation of their results. RECENT FINDINGS: We review concepts and discuss recent developments related to the use of time-to-event endpoints in studies on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for colon, pancreatic, and gastric adenocarcinomas. The definition of endpoints has varied to a considerable extent in these settings. Although these variations are relevant in interpreting results from individual trials, they probably have a small impact when considered in aggregate. In terms of surrogacy, most published reports so far have used aggregated data. A few studies based on the preferred method of a metaanalysis of individual-patient data have shown that disease-free survival (DFS) is a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer and in gastric cancer, whereas DFS with a landmark of six months is a surrogate for overall survival in the neoadjuvant therapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, or stomach. SUMMARY: Testing novel agents in gastrointestinal cancer requires continued attention to statistical issues related to endpoints.

Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size-Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). Objective: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size-weighted coefficients of determination (R2), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS. Results: For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R2 value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti-epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Chronological Trends in Progression-Free, Overall, and Post-Progression Survival in First-Line Therapy for Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: There is a debate about the merits of progression-free survival (PFS) versus overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints in NSCLC. It has been postulated that post-progression therapy may influence OS in both arms. To investigate this issue, we analyzed chronological trends in PFS and OS in advanced NSCLC using restricted mean survival times (RMSTs). METHODS: We digitized survival curves from first-line phase III trials published between 1998 and 2015 in 13 leading journals to compute RMSTs for PFS and OS at three truncation landmarks (5, 12, and 18 months). RESULTS: Among the 161 trials identified, RMSTs could be computed for both endpoints in 102, 97, and 82 trials for the 5-, 12-, and 18-month truncation landmarks, respectively. Post-progression survival in the control arm, quantified as mean OS minus mean PFS truncated at 18 months, was on average 3.3 months between 1998 and 2003, 4.4 months between 2004 and 2009, and 5.4 months between 2010 and 2015. This increase was due to increasing RMST for OS over time, with no increase in RMST for PFS. The average within-trial difference in RMSTs between experimental and control arm was close to 0 for OS and less than 1 month for PFS. CONCLUSIONS: There is a progressive increase in post-progression survival in NSCLC trials, likely from salvage therapy. These results question both PFS and OS as sensitive endpoints in first-line trials, but suggest that the outlook for patients is improving regardless of within-trial gains.

Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in patients with HER2-positive, early breast cancer in trials of adjuvant trastuzumab for up to 1 year: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although frequently used as a primary endpoint, disease-free survival has not been validated as a surrogate for overall survival in early breast cancer. We investigated this surrogacy in the adjuvant setting of treatment with anti-HER2 antibodies. METHODS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified published and non-published randomised controlled trials with completed accrual and available disease-free survival and overall survival results for the intention-to-treat population as of September 2016. Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), clinical trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and PharmNet.Bund), and trial registries from relevant pharmaceutical companies were searched. Eligibility for treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer required at least one group to have an anti-HER antibody treatment (ie, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or trastuzumab emtansine) planned for 12 months, and at least one control arm with chemotherapy without the antibody, a lower total dose or duration of the antibody, or observation alone. Units of analysis were contrasts: two-group trials gave rise to one contrast, whereas trials with more than two groups gave rise to more than one contrast. We excluded trials enrolling patients with recurrent, metastatic, or non-invasive disease, and those testing neoadjuvant therapy exclusively. Our primary objective was to estimate patient-level and trial-level correlations between disease-free survival and overall survival. We measured the association between disease-free survival and overall survival using Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs), and the association between hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival and overall survival using R2. We computed the surrogate threshold effect, the maximum HR for disease-free survival that statistically predicts an HR for overall survival less than 1·00 in a future trial. FINDINGS: Eight trials (n=21 480 patients) gave rise to a full set (12 contrasts). Patient-level associations between disease-free and overall survival were strong (rs=0·90 [95% CI 0·89-0·90]). Trial-level associations gave rise to values of R2 of 0·75 (95% CI 0·50-1·00) for the full set. Subgroups defined by nodal status and hormone receptor status yielded qualitatively similar results. Depending on the expected number of deaths in a future trial, the surrogate threshold effects ranged from 0·56 to 0·81, based on the full set. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that it is appropriate to continue to use disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in trials in HER-2-positive, early breast cancer. The key limitation of this study is the dependence of its results on the trials included and on the existence of an outlying trial. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG.