A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology

Alyson Haslam, Spencer P. Hey, Jennifer Gill, Vinay Prasad

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Surrogates are frequently used in cancer medicine as the end-point of clinical trials and as the basis of United States Food and Drug Administration approvals, but they do not always represent outcomes that are important for patients. We aim to build upon previous umbrella reviews of surrogate validation studies by identifying and examining all meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials that evaluate the strength of correlation between overall survival (OS) and surrogate markers. Methods: Google Scholar and PubMed were searched by two independent reviewers for all eligible meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining the correlation between a surrogate end-point and OS in medical oncology. Included studies were trial-level (level-1) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in cancer. Data abstracted include date of publication, tumour type, setting, trial set, number of studies included in the analysis, dates of included publications, correlation coefficients and method to determine the correlation coefficient. Results: Seventy-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported correlations in 89 settings. Eleven (12%) of these validation studies found only high correlation(s), while nine (10%) settings showed a moderate-only correlation. Thirty-four (38%) reported only low correlation(s). Thirty-five (39%) reported correlations of different strengths, depending on surrogate marker used and test of correlation. Conclusions: In this large, umbrella analysis of surrogate validation studies, we found most surrogates in oncology had low or modest correlation with OS, which suggests that caution should be used when making conclusions based on surrogate markers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-211
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume106
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Validation Studies
Biomarkers
Survival
Randomized Controlled Trials
Publications
Drug Approval
Neoplasms
Medical Oncology
United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed
Medicine
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Oncology
  • Surrogate outcome
  • Validation study

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. / Haslam, Alyson; Hey, Spencer P.; Gill, Jennifer; Prasad, Vinay.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 106, 01.01.2019, p. 196-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{0fef596f39bb476c82e44c30380ae0c7,
title = "A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology",
abstract = "Background: Surrogates are frequently used in cancer medicine as the end-point of clinical trials and as the basis of United States Food and Drug Administration approvals, but they do not always represent outcomes that are important for patients. We aim to build upon previous umbrella reviews of surrogate validation studies by identifying and examining all meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials that evaluate the strength of correlation between overall survival (OS) and surrogate markers. Methods: Google Scholar and PubMed were searched by two independent reviewers for all eligible meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining the correlation between a surrogate end-point and OS in medical oncology. Included studies were trial-level (level-1) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in cancer. Data abstracted include date of publication, tumour type, setting, trial set, number of studies included in the analysis, dates of included publications, correlation coefficients and method to determine the correlation coefficient. Results: Seventy-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported correlations in 89 settings. Eleven (12{\%}) of these validation studies found only high correlation(s), while nine (10{\%}) settings showed a moderate-only correlation. Thirty-four (38{\%}) reported only low correlation(s). Thirty-five (39{\%}) reported correlations of different strengths, depending on surrogate marker used and test of correlation. Conclusions: In this large, umbrella analysis of surrogate validation studies, we found most surrogates in oncology had low or modest correlation with OS, which suggests that caution should be used when making conclusions based on surrogate markers.",
keywords = "Oncology, Surrogate outcome, Validation study",
author = "Alyson Haslam and Hey, {Spencer P.} and Jennifer Gill and Vinay Prasad",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "196--211",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology

AU - Haslam, Alyson

AU - Hey, Spencer P.

AU - Gill, Jennifer

AU - Prasad, Vinay

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Surrogates are frequently used in cancer medicine as the end-point of clinical trials and as the basis of United States Food and Drug Administration approvals, but they do not always represent outcomes that are important for patients. We aim to build upon previous umbrella reviews of surrogate validation studies by identifying and examining all meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials that evaluate the strength of correlation between overall survival (OS) and surrogate markers. Methods: Google Scholar and PubMed were searched by two independent reviewers for all eligible meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining the correlation between a surrogate end-point and OS in medical oncology. Included studies were trial-level (level-1) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in cancer. Data abstracted include date of publication, tumour type, setting, trial set, number of studies included in the analysis, dates of included publications, correlation coefficients and method to determine the correlation coefficient. Results: Seventy-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported correlations in 89 settings. Eleven (12%) of these validation studies found only high correlation(s), while nine (10%) settings showed a moderate-only correlation. Thirty-four (38%) reported only low correlation(s). Thirty-five (39%) reported correlations of different strengths, depending on surrogate marker used and test of correlation. Conclusions: In this large, umbrella analysis of surrogate validation studies, we found most surrogates in oncology had low or modest correlation with OS, which suggests that caution should be used when making conclusions based on surrogate markers.

AB - Background: Surrogates are frequently used in cancer medicine as the end-point of clinical trials and as the basis of United States Food and Drug Administration approvals, but they do not always represent outcomes that are important for patients. We aim to build upon previous umbrella reviews of surrogate validation studies by identifying and examining all meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials that evaluate the strength of correlation between overall survival (OS) and surrogate markers. Methods: Google Scholar and PubMed were searched by two independent reviewers for all eligible meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials examining the correlation between a surrogate end-point and OS in medical oncology. Included studies were trial-level (level-1) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in cancer. Data abstracted include date of publication, tumour type, setting, trial set, number of studies included in the analysis, dates of included publications, correlation coefficients and method to determine the correlation coefficient. Results: Seventy-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported correlations in 89 settings. Eleven (12%) of these validation studies found only high correlation(s), while nine (10%) settings showed a moderate-only correlation. Thirty-four (38%) reported only low correlation(s). Thirty-five (39%) reported correlations of different strengths, depending on surrogate marker used and test of correlation. Conclusions: In this large, umbrella analysis of surrogate validation studies, we found most surrogates in oncology had low or modest correlation with OS, which suggests that caution should be used when making conclusions based on surrogate markers.

KW - Oncology

KW - Surrogate outcome

KW - Validation study

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057787487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057787487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.012

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.012

M3 - Review article

VL - 106

SP - 196

EP - 211

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

ER -