Survival Assessment by Central Review vs. Local Investigator in Metastatic Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<b>Background:</b> Although blinded independent central review (BICR) can reduce assessment variability, it introduces additional financial and logistical burdens to trial operations. This study analyzed the discrepancy indexes (DIs) to evaluate differences between progression-free survival (PFS) assessments by local investigators (LIs) and BICR in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with metastatic melanoma. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 30 June 2024. The primary outcome was the DI, which was calculated for each trial as a ratio of the hazard ratios (HR)<sub>BICR</sub> by HR<sub>LI</sub>. The agreement between PFS HRs was also evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>). <b>Results:</b> Twelve studies comprising 4915 patients were included in this study. Of these, 10 (83%) were Phase III, 11 (92%) were cutaneous melanoma, one was uveal, and all identified PFS as the primary endpoint. Most (86%) of the PFS comparisons yielded the same statistical inference by both BICR and LIs. The overall combined DI was calculated at 1.08 (95% CI: 1.01-1.15), indicating a statistically significant, numerically small difference in PFS evaluations driven primarily by the uveal Phase III double-blinded study, while there was a strong overall correlation [(ICC: 0.87, <i>p</i> < 0.001); (<i>r</i> = 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-0.96, <i>p</i> < 0.0001)]. Cutaneous melanoma trials demonstrated strong agreement between BICR and local investigator assessments. <b>Conclusions:</b> In randomized trials of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, LI-assessed PFS closely aligns with BICR and provides equivalent trial-level conclusions in most cases. These findings support the use of LI-assessed PFS as a valid and practical primary endpoint, without routine requirement for BICR. Central review should be reserved for selected scenarios.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-02-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040710
Primary Topic
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Survival Assessment by Central Review vs. Local Investigator in Metastatic Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eissa Jafari, Andrew Scott Brohl, Joseph Markowitz, Islam Eljilany et al.
Cancers
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
article

Survival Assessment by Central Review vs. Local Investigator in Metastatic Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eissa Jafari, Andrew Scott Brohl, Joseph Markowitz, Islam Eljilany, P. Hwu, Abdullah M. Alhumaid, Z. Eroglu, Ahmad A. Tarhini, Nikhil I. Khushalani, Lilit Karapetyan
article en

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> Although blinded independent central review (BICR) can reduce assessment variability, it introduces additional financial and logistical burdens to trial operations. This study analyzed the discrepancy indexes (DIs) to evaluate differences between progression-free survival (PFS) assessments by local investigators (LIs) and BICR in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with metastatic melanoma. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 30 June 2024. The primary outcome was the DI, which was calculated for each trial as a ratio of the hazard ratios (HR)<sub>BICR</sub> by HR<sub>LI</sub>. The agreement between PFS HRs was also evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>). <b>Results:</b> Twelve studies comprising 4915 patients were included in this study. Of these, 10 (83%) were Phase III, 11 (92%) were cutaneous melanoma, one was uveal, and all identified PFS as the primary endpoint. Most (86%) of the PFS comparisons yielded the same statistical inference by both BICR and LIs. The overall combined DI was calculated at 1.08 (95% CI: 1.01-1.15), indicating a statistically significant, numerically small difference in PFS evaluations driven primarily by the uveal Phase III double-blinded study, while there was a strong overall correlation [(ICC: 0.87, <i>p</i> < 0.001); (<i>r</i> = 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-0.96, <i>p</i> < 0.0001)]. Cutaneous melanoma trials demonstrated strong agreement between BICR and local investigator assessments. <b>Conclusions:</b> In randomized trials of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, LI-assessed PFS closely aligns with BICR and provides equivalent trial-level conclusions in most cases. These findings support the use of LI-assessed PFS as a valid and practical primary endpoint, without routine requirement for BICR. Central review should be reserved for selected scenarios.

CancersVol. 18(4)
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (US), Moffitt Cancer Center (US), University of Ha'il (SA), Jazan University (SA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.