Table 2.

FT of the ESMO-MCBS for the treatment of thyroid cancer at the Medical University of Vienna

Analysed treatment	Setting	Primary EP	PFS control	PFS gain	PFS HR	OS control	OS gain	OS HR	Adjustment/ remark	MCBS	MCBS-FT
Cabozantinib versus placebo Elisei et al, JCO16	Progressive disease medullary thyroid cancer	PFS	4 months	7.2 months	0.28 (0.19–0.40)				42% versus 23% SAE, downgrade 1 point	−	2
Vandetanib versus placebo Wells et al, JCO17	Medullary thyroid cancer	PFS	19 months	11.2 months	0.46 (0.31–0.69)				More grade III/IV AEs	−	2–3*
Lenvatinib versus placebo (SELECT) Schlumberger et al, NEJM18	Progressive disease iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer	PFS	3.6 months	14.7 months	0.21 (0.14–0.31)				Increased toxicity including toxic deaths, downgrade 1 point	−	2
Sorafenib versus placebo (DECISION) Brose et al, Lancet19	Progressive disease iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer	PFS	5.8 months	5 months	0.59 (0.45–0.76)				37% versus 26% SAE, downgrade 1 point	−	2

*Unclear toxicity data.

AE, adverse event; EP, endpoint; ESMO, European Society for Medical Oncology; FT, field testing; MCBS, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Score; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SAE, serious adverse event.