Article

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

ABSTRACT

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

Full-text

Available from: Junichi Sakamoto
  • 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. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00003991.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2011 · Trials

  • No preview · Article ·
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, the cost of drug development has increased the demands on efficiency in the selection of suitable drug candidates; surrogate end points have emerged to improve this process, hoping that they can help reduce duration and cost of clinical trials. Additionally, they can help in solving ethical issues when measuring the clinical end point involves the application of risky or uncomfortable medical procedures. However, the very mention of surrogate end points has always been controversial, owing in part to unfortunate historical events. As a consequence, there is growing consensus on the use of validated surrogates only. Here, we discuss some of the validation strategies that have recently been proposed and consider the future of surrogate end points in clinical research.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2008 · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Show more