What counts as “success” in cancer care? A surgeon may answer with a clean resection margin, a radiation oncologist with local control, a medical oncologist with progression-free survival, and a health economist with cost per quality-adjusted life year. All of them are right, and that is exactly the problem for a manager trying to judge whether an organisational intervention has worked. This chapter catalogues the clinical endpoints that represent treatment success, or oncological effectiveness, in the oncology operations and management literature, and evaluates them from a management and health economics perspective. It follows the medical outcome scales chapter: where that chapter focused on measurement instruments, this one focuses on the outcome being measured.
How the catalogue was built
The 856-record Web of Science corpus on oncology operations and management (articles in English, 2020 to 2026) was scanned with a reproducible dictionary of endpoint names and abbreviations. Ambiguous short abbreviations required the full term; in particular, pathological complete response (pCR) was separated from the laboratory technique PCR. Each parameter was counted both for the whole corpus and for the management and economic evaluation cluster. Mortality and recurrence were included as inverse indicators of success. The scan identified 22 parameters across 327 articles.
The catalogue of success endpoints
Survival endpoints are the core:
- Overall survival (OS), time to death from any cause: 128 articles (46 in the management cluster). The undisputed definitive endpoint.
- Progression-free survival (68; 39 in management), disease-free survival (27), recurrence-free (8), metastasis-free (4), event-free (2) and cancer-specific survival (1). Mostly intermediate endpoints that read earlier.
Response and control endpoints give rapid feedback, especially in radiotherapy and systemic therapy research: complete response (25), local control (24), pathological complete response (13), locoregional control (10), objective response rate by RECIST (7), biochemical or PSA control (5), partial response (3) and disease control rate (3).
Surgical, composite and inverse indicators:
- QALY or quality-adjusted survival, the composite of length and quality of life: 113 articles, 110 of them in the management cluster. The most critical metric from a management point of view.
- Recurrence or relapse (87), mortality (38), progression or time to progression (14), downstaging or tumour regression (7), R0 resection (7) and cure rate (1).
A four-tier hierarchy
Endpoints differ in evidential value and in when they can be read:
- Definitive endpoints (overall survival, cancer-specific survival, cure rate, mortality) measure the patient’s ultimate benefit directly and carry the highest evidential value.
- Intermediate or surrogate endpoints (progression-free, disease-free, recurrence-free, metastasis-free, event-free survival) read earlier, but their relationship to the definitive endpoint must be validated.
- Response endpoints (objective response, complete and partial response, pathological complete response) are early tumour-level signals of efficacy, linked only indirectly to survival.
- Value-based metrics (the QALY) combine duration with quality and supply the effectiveness side of cost-effectiveness.
The practical warning for management research: judging a managerial intervention only by an intermediate endpoint or a response rate risks overstating or misreading its contribution to the patient’s ultimate benefit. The strongest management evidence comes from studies that link an intervention to a definitive endpoint or a value-based metric.
Distribution and trend
At category level, survival endpoints account for 169 articles (33.3% of category mentions), composite value metrics 114 (22.4%), recurrence and progression 100 (19.7%), mortality 38, local and regional control 37 and tumour response 36. The most striking trend is the rise of the QALY: from 9 articles in 2020 to 27 in 2025, overtaking overall survival (14 in 2025). Overall survival has stayed relatively stable over the period, while tumour response and recurrence have fluctuated.
Five evaluative themes
Two lenses of success. There is no single definition of oncological success. The clinical lens measures it by length of life, above all overall survival, the most frequent endpoint in the corpus as a whole. The management and economic lens measures it by the QALY, which dominates the core and economic clusters. The same treatment can therefore look successful through one lens and less so through the other.
The tension between definitive and surrogate endpoints. Overall survival has the highest evidential value but needs long follow-up; surrogates read earlier and are used often, yet an improvement in a surrogate does not always translate into survival.
The rise of value-based metrics. Under the pressure of expensive new therapies and constrained budgets, success is increasingly defined in terms of the quality and cost of life gained, not just its length. This is a positive development for management, because it puts clinical success and resource decisions on the same scale, but the validity of the QALY depends on the quality-of-life instruments and utility values beneath it.
Limited evidence linking management to success. The core management cluster contains studies that link a managerial intervention directly to an oncological endpoint, such as the effect of multidisciplinary team management on survival, of access on survival inequalities, of capacity and diagnostic facilities on mortality, and of co-medication quality on survival. But they are few, and the mediating mechanisms through which managerial structures and processes reach clinical success are rarely explained.
Measurement consistency. The variety of endpoints is both a richness and a comparability problem. The chapter recommends that management studies report at least one definitive or value-based endpoint as standard, and present surrogates alongside it, so the clinical and economic lenses can be read in the same study.
Bridge studies
Examples from the core management cluster show how management and system factors touch oncological success: work on enhancing global access to cancer medicines argues that limited access to timely diagnosis, affordable treatment and high-quality care drives survival disparities between and within countries; a study of sociodemographic disparities in access to bladder cancer chemotherapy examined the effect on survival; and an analysis of a head-and-neck radiation oncology fellowship examined its impact on multidisciplinary assessment and outcomes.
Source chapter: Kurutkan, M. N. (2026). Oncological success parameters in the oncology operations and management literature. Oncology Hospital Management Training Series, supplementary chapter (original in Turkish).
References
Cherny, N. I., Sullivan, R., Dafni, U., Kerst, J. M., Sobrero, A., Zielinski, C., de Vries, E. G. E., & Piccart, M. J. (2015). A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Annals of Oncology, 26(8), 1547–1573. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv249
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., Rubinstein, L., Shankar, L., Dodd, L., Kaplan, R., Lacombe, D., & Verweij, J. (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer, 45(2), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Fundytus, A., Sengar, M., Lombe, D., Hopman, W., Jalink, M., Gyawali, B., Trapani, D., Roitberg, F., De Vries, E. G. E., Moja, L., Ilbawi, A., Sullivan, R., & Booth, C. M. (2021). Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey. Lancet Oncology, 22(10), 1367-1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00463-0
Hidalgo, C. M., Hernandez-Herrera, G. A., Day, C. N., Olawuni, F., Abdel-Halim, C. N., Van Abel, K. M., Routman, D. M., & Yin, L. X. (2025). Access to surgery and high-quality radiotherapy for human papillomavirus related oropharynx cancer. Oral Oncology, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2025.107768
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024
Venkat, S., Lewicki, P. J., Khan, A. I., Gaffney, C., Borregales, L., & Scherr, D. S. (2022). Sociodemographic Disparities in Access to Chemotherapy for Bladder Cancer. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 20(2), E140-E150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.017
Key concepts in this article
Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ValidityConcepts link to the Glossary. Explore the knowledge graph →
Cite this page (APA 7)
Kurutkan, M. N. (2026, November 11). Oncological Success Parameters: Survival, Response and Value in Oncology Management Research. The Health Topics. https://healthtopic.org/topics/oncological-success-parameters-survival-response-value/