Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer

Center for Statistics, Hasselt University, Agoralaan D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Lifetime Data Analysis (Impact Factor: 0.65). 04/2008; 14(1):54-64. DOI: 10.1007/s10985-007-9079-4
Source: PubMed


Sargent et al (J Clin Oncol 23: 8664-8670, 2005) concluded that 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) can be considered a valid surrogate (replacement) endpoint for 5-year overall survival (OS) in clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. We address the question whether the conclusion holds for trials involving other classes of treatments than those considered by Sargent et al. Additionally, we assess if the 3-year cutpoint is an optimal one. To this aim, we investigate whether the results reported by Sargent et al. could have been used to predict treatment effects in three centrally randomized adjuvant colorectal cancer trials performed by the Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment for Cancer (JFMTC) (Sakamoto et al. J Clin Oncol 22:484-492, 2004). Our analysis supports the conclusion of Sargent et al. and shows that using DFS at 2 or 3 years would be the best option for the prediction of OS at 5 years.

Download full-text


Available from: Junichi Sakamoto, Oct 09, 2015
28 Reads
  • Source
    • "First and foremost, when evaluating new cancer treatments, a number of efficacy endpoints are usually considered. In both early and advanced disease, commonly used endpoints are OS and disease or progression-free survival (DFS or PFS) [6-8]. In the case of acute leukemia, if a trial reaches statistical significance on DFS (more commonly called leukemia-free survival, LFS) but not on OS, is it because the treatment actually has an effect on one endpoint but not on the other, or merely because the effect seen on LFS is attenuated in the analysis of OS? "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data from a randomized multinational phase 3 trial of 320 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that maintenance therapy with 3-week cycles of histamine dihydrochloride plus low-dose interleukin-2 (HDC/IL-2) for up to 18 months significantly improved leukemia-free survival (LFS) but lacked power to detect an overall survival (OS) difference. To assess the consistency of treatment benefit across patient subsets and the robustness of data with respect to trial centers and endpoints. Forest plots were constructed with hazard ratios (HRs) of HDC/IL-2 treatment effects versus no treatment (control) for prospectively defined patient subsets. Inconsistency coefficients (I²) and interaction tests (X²) were used to detect any differences in benefit among subsets. Robustness of results to the elimination of individual study centers was performed using "leave-one-center-out" analyses. Associations between treatment effects on the endpoints were evaluated using weighted linear regression between HRs for LFS and OS estimated within countries. The benefit of HDC/IL-2 over controls was statistically consistent across all subsets defined by baseline prognostic variables. I² and P-values of X² ranged from 0.00 to 0.51 and 0.14 to 0.91, respectively. Treatment effects were statistically significant in 14 of 28 subsets analyzed. The "leave-one-center-out" analysis confirmed that no single center dominated (P-values ranged from 0.004 to 0.020 [mean 0.009]). The HRs representing the HDC/IL-2 effects on LFS and OS were strongly correlated at the country level (R² = 0.84). Small sample sizes in some of the subsets analyzed. These analyses confirm the consistency and robustness of the HDC/IL-2 effect as compared with no treatment. LFS may be an acceptable surrogate for OS in future AML trials. Analyses of consistency and robustness may aid interpretation of data from multicenter trials, especially in populations with rare diseases, when the size of randomized clinical trials is limited. NCT00003991.
    Trials 03/2011; 12:86. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-86 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antibodies are proteins secreted by vertebrates, which bind to specific molecular moieties [1]. Millions of different antibodies are made by organisms, and early in development most self-recognising antibodies are removed from the repertoire. The remaining antibodies, accordingly, recognise non-self molecules, and are used by the host to eliminate microorganisms, foreign objects, and malignant cells. Manufacturing these highly specific molecules and using them for cancer treatment represents a major breakthrough. Nonetheless, the challenges required to bring this technology to the clinic are significant and costly. Drug discovery, manufacturing, and clinical development are all expensive and have high risk [2], and optimising these processes are crucial. This chapter will summarise the science behind this technology, the current use of antibodies in anti-cancer treatment, the methodology of antibody anti-cancer drug development, and the ways in which these components may be improved to facilitate the transition from the laboratory to the clinic.
Show more