Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Authors' response
  1. F Bonnetain1,2,
  2. B Guiu3,4,
  3. F Ghiringhelli4,5
  1. 1Biostatistics and epidemiological Unit, Georges-Francois Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France
  2. 2School of Medicine, Dijon, France
  3. 3Department of Radiology, CHU (University Hospital), Dijon, France
  4. 4University of Burgundy, INSERM, Dijon, France
  5. 5Department of Oncology, Georges-Francois Leclerc Cancer Centre, Dijon, France
  1. Correspondence to Francois Ghiringhelli, Department of Oncology, Georges-Francois Leclerc Cancer Centre, Dijon, France; fghiringhelli{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We welcome the letter from Dr Jubb1 in reply to our recently published study.2

It was clearly laid out that our endpoints included not only response or time to progression but also overall survival (OS), which is the criterion standard of clinical endpoints. Whereas progression-free survival has been validated as a surrogate endpoint in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) for first-line chemotherapy, tumour response and time to progression were not appropriate surrogate endpoints.3 Furthermore, recent articles underlined that validation of surrogacy is dependent upon both the setting and the studied treatment.4 We therefore fully agree that the surrogacy of progression-free survival should be validated in mCRC treated by chemotherapy + bevacizumab before its use as primary endpoint. Therefore, we investigated in the article the impact of …

View Full Text


  • Linked articles 213777.

  • Funding Center GF Leclerc.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles