The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses

Vinay Prasad, Chul Kim, Mauricio Burotto, Andrae Vandross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

132 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology is important to understand because surrogate end points are frequently used in oncology clinical trials, supporting US Food and Drug Administration approvals and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate trial-level meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point and overall survival in medical oncology. Trial-level correlations test whether treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final end point and are widely considered the strongest evidence to validate a surrogate end point. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Our literature search was built on earlier reported data sets and updated with Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches conducted on December 26, 2014. For MEDLINE, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate" and "end point [or endpoint]" and ("oncology" or "cancer"). For Google scholar, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate end point [or endpoint]" and "overall survival" and "trial level." A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full in addition to articles identified through prior reviews. FINDINGS: We found 36 articles in which 65 specific correlations between a surrogate end point and survival were identified. Surrogate end points were studied in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings. The most common sources for trials included in the 36 articles were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28%), and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39%). Four meta-analyses (11%) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14%) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Among these 5 studies, only 352 of 684 eligible trials (51.1%) were included in the analyses. More than half of reported correlations (34 of 65; 52%) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25%) were of medium strength (r > 0.7tor <0.85), and 15 of 65 (23%) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low correlations with survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate end points in oncology is limited.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1389-1398
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA Internal Medicine
Volume175
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Biomarkers
Validation Studies
MEDLINE
Clinical Trials
Drug Approval
Medical Oncology
Registries
Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines
Food

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology : A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. / Prasad, Vinay; Kim, Chul; Burotto, Mauricio; Vandross, Andrae.

In: JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol. 175, No. 8, 01.08.2015, p. 1389-1398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{21738a2c23e347d8a036ea11517f9d0e,
title = "The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE: The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology is important to understand because surrogate end points are frequently used in oncology clinical trials, supporting US Food and Drug Administration approvals and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate trial-level meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point and overall survival in medical oncology. Trial-level correlations test whether treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final end point and are widely considered the strongest evidence to validate a surrogate end point. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Our literature search was built on earlier reported data sets and updated with Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches conducted on December 26, 2014. For MEDLINE, search terms included ({"}regression{"} or {"}correlation{"}) and {"}surrogate{"} and {"}end point [or endpoint]{"} and ({"}oncology{"} or {"}cancer{"}). For Google scholar, search terms included ({"}regression{"} or {"}correlation{"}) and {"}surrogate end point [or endpoint]{"} and {"}overall survival{"} and {"}trial level.{"} A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full in addition to articles identified through prior reviews. FINDINGS: We found 36 articles in which 65 specific correlations between a surrogate end point and survival were identified. Surrogate end points were studied in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings. The most common sources for trials included in the 36 articles were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28{\%}), and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39{\%}). Four meta-analyses (11{\%}) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14{\%}) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Among these 5 studies, only 352 of 684 eligible trials (51.1{\%}) were included in the analyses. More than half of reported correlations (34 of 65; 52{\%}) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25{\%}) were of medium strength (r > 0.7tor <0.85), and 15 of 65 (23{\%}) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low correlations with survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate end points in oncology is limited.",
author = "Vinay Prasad and Chul Kim and Mauricio Burotto and Andrae Vandross",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "175",
pages = "1389--1398",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology

T2 - A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses

AU - Prasad, Vinay

AU - Kim, Chul

AU - Burotto, Mauricio

AU - Vandross, Andrae

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE: The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology is important to understand because surrogate end points are frequently used in oncology clinical trials, supporting US Food and Drug Administration approvals and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate trial-level meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point and overall survival in medical oncology. Trial-level correlations test whether treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final end point and are widely considered the strongest evidence to validate a surrogate end point. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Our literature search was built on earlier reported data sets and updated with Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches conducted on December 26, 2014. For MEDLINE, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate" and "end point [or endpoint]" and ("oncology" or "cancer"). For Google scholar, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate end point [or endpoint]" and "overall survival" and "trial level." A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full in addition to articles identified through prior reviews. FINDINGS: We found 36 articles in which 65 specific correlations between a surrogate end point and survival were identified. Surrogate end points were studied in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings. The most common sources for trials included in the 36 articles were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28%), and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39%). Four meta-analyses (11%) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14%) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Among these 5 studies, only 352 of 684 eligible trials (51.1%) were included in the analyses. More than half of reported correlations (34 of 65; 52%) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25%) were of medium strength (r > 0.7tor <0.85), and 15 of 65 (23%) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low correlations with survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate end points in oncology is limited.

AB - IMPORTANCE: The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology is important to understand because surrogate end points are frequently used in oncology clinical trials, supporting US Food and Drug Administration approvals and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate trial-level meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point and overall survival in medical oncology. Trial-level correlations test whether treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final end point and are widely considered the strongest evidence to validate a surrogate end point. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Our literature search was built on earlier reported data sets and updated with Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches conducted on December 26, 2014. For MEDLINE, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate" and "end point [or endpoint]" and ("oncology" or "cancer"). For Google scholar, search terms included ("regression" or "correlation") and "surrogate end point [or endpoint]" and "overall survival" and "trial level." A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full in addition to articles identified through prior reviews. FINDINGS: We found 36 articles in which 65 specific correlations between a surrogate end point and survival were identified. Surrogate end points were studied in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings. The most common sources for trials included in the 36 articles were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28%), and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39%). Four meta-analyses (11%) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14%) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Among these 5 studies, only 352 of 684 eligible trials (51.1%) were included in the analyses. More than half of reported correlations (34 of 65; 52%) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25%) were of medium strength (r > 0.7tor <0.85), and 15 of 65 (23%) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low correlations with survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate end points in oncology is limited.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939825159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939825159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829

DO - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829

M3 - Article

C2 - 26098871

AN - SCOPUS:84939825159

VL - 175

SP - 1389

EP - 1398

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 8

ER -