Comparisons of post-relapse survival (PRS) and post-progression survival have been used to measure efficacy in some cancer clinical trials. These comparisons are an attempt to account for second-line therapies and to identify benefits that do not translate in longer overall survival. However, the use of PRS comparisons can be misleading (either a longer or shorter PRS may indicate a benefit, depending on the circumstances) and can result in biased estimates (because of selection). Here, we describe the problems surrounding PRS comparisons and propose alternative approaches to deal with non-randomized therapies administered after progression to the experimental treatment.
