Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (910 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Length of time during and after the treatment of a disease, such as cancer, that a patient lives with the disease but the disease does not get worse.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Progression Free Survival; Survival, Progression-Free; Event-Free Survival; Event Free Survival; Survival, Event-Free.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Treatment Outcome; Survival Analysis
- See also
- Disease-Free Survival
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 13,265 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Progression-Free Survival” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 10,210 of them (77.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 10,210 records.
Reviews account for 1,680 records (12.7%) and meta-analyses for 1,000. Randomized controlled trials number 1,552 (11.7%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 2 |
| 2010-2019 | 3,458 |
| 2020 onward | 10,210 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,680 | 12.7% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,000 | 7.5% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,552 | 11.7% |
Method: PubMed query "Progression-Free Survival"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prognostic and predictive role of CD8 and PD-L1 determination in lung tumor tissue of patients under anti-PD-1 therapy | 2018 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 151 | cc by PMID 30318514 · DOI · PMC6203820 |
| Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review | 2020 | Systematic review Design not recorded in structured metadata | 84 | cc by PMID 32214230 · DOI · PMC7250908 |
| Antibiotic use influences outcomes in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients | 2021 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 68 | cc by PMID 34250759 · DOI · PMC8335807 |
| Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy-driven immunosuppression is associated with poorer progression-free survival in cancer patients | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 41410871 · DOI · PMC12715060 |
Prognostic and predictive role of CD8 and PD-L1 determination in lung tumor tissue of patients under anti-PD-1 therapy [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundNo study has evaluated the predictive and prognostic role of CD8 and PD-L1 coexpression in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionCD8 represents both a prognostic and predictive factor of outcomes, while PD-L1 share different prognostic and predictive roles.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (196 words)
BackgroundNo study has evaluated the predictive and prognostic role of CD8 and PD-L1 coexpression in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsWe analyzed RNA sequencing and/or immunohistochemistry staining in NSCLC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 1016), and 34 metastatic NSCLC samples not treated by immunotherapy as prognostic cohorts. As predictive aspect of CD8 and PD-L1, we used 85 NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-1. Two validation cohorts were used including 44 NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-1 and an external cohort with different tumor types.ResultsIn prognostic cohorts, high CD8A expression was associated with longer OS (p = 0.02), while high CD274 mRNA was associated with poor prognosis (p = 0.05). In predictive cohort, high CD8 expression and CD8A mRNA were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0002). There was no significant association between PD-L1 expression and PFS while high CD274 mRNA was associated with longer PFS (p = 0.009). A combination of CD8A and CD274 was highly predictive of outcome. These results were confirmed in the validation cohorts. This two-genes signature demonstrated similar results compared to gold standard signatures.ConclusionCD8 represents both a prognostic and predictive factor of outcomes, while PD-L1 share different prognostic and predictive roles.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30318514 · DOI · PMC6203820
Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundProgression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival (OS) in oncology.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionsAlthough most studies used a meta-analytic approach as recommended, our methodological review highlights heterogeneity in methods and reporting, which stresses the importance of developing and applying clear recommendations in this area.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (189 words)
BackgroundProgression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival (OS) in oncology. Validation of PFS as a surrogate must be done for each indication and each intervention. We aimed to identify all studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in oncology, and to describe their methodological characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane Library with no limitation on time, selected relevant studies and extracted data in duplicate on how surrogacy was evaluated (meta-analytic approach, assessment of correlation and level of evaluation).ResultsWe identified 91 studies evaluating the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in 24 cancer localisations. Although a meta-analytic approach was used in 83 (91%) studies, the methods used to validate PFS as a surrogate of OS were heterogeneous across studies. Of the 47 studies concluding that PFS is a good surrogate for OS, for 15 (32%), there was no quantitative argument for surrogacy.ConclusionsAlthough most studies used a meta-analytic approach as recommended, our methodological review highlights heterogeneity in methods and reporting, which stresses the importance of developing and applying clear recommendations in this area.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32214230 · DOI · PMC7250908
Antibiotic use influences outcomes in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Recent studies defined a potentially important role of the microbiome in modulating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and responses to therapies.
- Closing excerpt
- Antibiotics-associated modulation of the microbiome is associated with better outcomes in patients with metastatic PDAC.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (265 words)
Recent studies defined a potentially important role of the microbiome in modulating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and responses to therapies. We hypothesized that antibiotic usage may predict outcomes in patients with PDAC. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients with resectable or metastatic PDAC seen at MD Anderson Cancer from 2003 to 2017. Demographic, chemotherapy regimen and antibiotic use, duration, type, and reason for indication were recorded. A total of 580 patients with PDAC were studied, 342 resected and 238 metastatic patients, selected retrospectively from our database. Antibiotic use, for longer than 48 hrs, was detected in 209 resected patients (61%) and 195 metastatic ones (62%). On resectable patients, we did not find differences in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS), based on antibiotic intake. However, in the metastatic cohort, antibiotic consumption was associated with a significantly longer OS (13.3 months vs. 9.0 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.7, p = 0.0001) and PFS (4.4 months vs. 2 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.68, p = <0.0001). In multivariate analysis, the impact of ATB remained significant for PFS (HR 0.59, p = 0.005) and borderline statistically significant for OS (HR 0.69, p = 0.06). When we analyzed by chemotherapy regimen, we found that patients who received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy (n = 118) had significantly prolonged OS (HR 0.4, p 0.0013) and PFS (HR 0.55, p 0.02) if they received antibiotics, while those receiving 5FU-based chemotherapy (n = 98) had only prolonged PFS (HR 0.54, p = 0.03). Antibiotics-associated modulation of the microbiome is associated with better outcomes in patients with metastatic PDAC.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34250759 · DOI · PMC8335807
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy-driven immunosuppression is associated with poorer progression-free survival in cancer patients [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundThe landscape of cancer treatment has evolved rapidly within the last 50 years, and whilst radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery remain the mainstay treatment options, there has been a shift towards using immunotherapy alone or in combination with other treatment modalities.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionsThese findings support a role for lymphocytes in preventing disease progression after SABR and suggest that a change to clinical practice to spare lymphocytes from the toxic effects of irradiation may have beneficial effects for patients.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (260 words)
BackgroundThe landscape of cancer treatment has evolved rapidly within the last 50 years, and whilst radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery remain the mainstay treatment options, there has been a shift towards using immunotherapy alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. There is an emerging paradigm that radiotherapy is immunogenic, driving stimulation of antigen-specific T cells capable of recognising tumour cells at distal sites to the treatment location.MethodsWhole blood samples were collected from patients with primary and oligometastatic cancer before, during, and after treatment with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Using clinical full blood counts, multiparameter flow cytometry, Luminex, and ELISpot assays, this study explored the impact of SABR on systemic immune cell composition, inflammatory markers, and antigen-specific T cell responses.ResultsWe identified striking systemic changes collectively indicating profound SABR-driven immunosuppression. Such changes were characterised by pronounced and sustained lymphopenia which included loss of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, B cells, and natural killer (NK) cells accompanied by an overall decline in effector T cell responses to common recall and cancer antigens. This loss of lymphocytes drove a rise in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which was associated with poorer progression-free survival (PFS) if increased from baseline. A higher dosage of radiation and treatment to a larger area were both associated with more pronounced lymphocyte loss, a concomitant NLR increase, and poorer PFS, particularly in individuals with liver lesions.ConclusionsThese findings support a role for lymphocytes in preventing disease progression after SABR and suggest that a change to clinical practice to spare lymphocytes from the toxic effects of irradiation may have beneficial effects for patients.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41410871 · DOI · PMC12715060
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis [5]
- Research article A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer [6]
- Research article Assessment of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point of Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [7]
- Research article A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement [8]
- Research article The impact of smoking on recurrence and progression of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [9]
- Research article Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis [10]
References
- Fumet JD, Richard C, Ledys F, Klopfenstein Q, Joubert P, Routy B, et al.. Prognostic and predictive role of CD8 and PD-L1 determination in lung tumor tissue of patients under anti-PD-1 therapy. . 2018. PMID 30318514 · DOI · PMC6203820
- Belin L, Tan A, De Rycke Y, Dechartres A. Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in oncology trials: a methodological systematic review. . 2020. PMID 32214230 · DOI · PMC7250908
- Mohindroo C, Hasanov M, Rogers JE, Dong W, Prakash LR, Baydogan S, et al.. Antibiotic use influences outcomes in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. . 2021. PMID 34250759 · DOI · PMC8335807
- Oliver J, Reed H, Capitani L, Poon-King A, Young A, Milutinovic S, et al.. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy-driven immunosuppression is associated with poorer progression-free survival in cancer patients. . 2025. PMID 41410871 · DOI · PMC12715060
- Kovic B, Jin X, Kennedy SA, Hylands M, Pedziwiatr M, Kuriyama A, et al.. Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018. PMID 30285081 · DOI · PMC6583599
- Cooper K, Tappenden P, Cantrell A, Ennis K. A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer. Br J Cancer. 2020. PMID 32913287 · DOI · PMC7687906
- Paoletti X, Lewsley LA, Daniele G, Cook A, Yanaihara N, Tinker A, et al.. Assessment of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point of Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020. PMID 31922558 · DOI · PMC6991254
- Bell Gorrod H, Kearns B, Stevens J, Thokala P, Labeit A, Latimer N, et al.. A Review of Survival Analysis Methods Used in NICE Technology Appraisals of Cancer Treatments: Consistency, Limitations, and Areas for Improvement. Med Decis Making. 2019. PMID 31707911 · DOI
- Ślusarczyk A, Zapała P, Zapała Ł, Radziszewski P. The impact of smoking on recurrence and progression of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023. PMID 36404390 · DOI · PMC10129946
- Waser NA, Quintana M, Schweikert B, Chaft JE, Berry L, Adam A, et al.. Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2024. PMID 38521542 · DOI · PMC11101053
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.