Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation.

Surrogate endpoints offer the hope of smaller or shorter cancer trials. It is, however, important to realize they come at the cost of an unverifiable extrapolation that could lead to misleading conclusions. With cancer prevention, the focus is on hypothesis testing in small surrogate endpoint trials before deciding whether to proceed to a large prevention trial. However, it is not generally appreciated that a small surrogate endpoint trial is highly sensitive to a deviation from the key Prentice criterion needed for the hypothesis-testing extrapolation. With cancer treatment, the focus is on estimation using historical trials with both surrogate and true endpoints to predict treatment effect based on the surrogate endpoint in a new trial. Successively leaving out one historical trial and computing the predicted treatment effect in the left-out trial yields a standard error multiplier that summarizes the increased uncertainty in estimation extrapolation. If this increased uncertainty is acceptable, three additional extrapolation issues (biological mechanism, treatment following observation of the surrogate endpoint, and side effects following observation of the surrogate endpoint) need to be considered. In summary, when using surrogate endpoint analyses, an appreciation of the problems of extrapolation is crucial.

[1]  B. Kramer,et al.  The risky reliance on small surrogate end point studies when planning a large prevention trial , 2013, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[2]  S. Baker Paradoxes in Carcinogenesis Should Spur New Avenues of Research: An Historical Perspective , 2012 .

[3]  James Y. Dai,et al.  A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials. , 2012, Biostatistics.

[4]  B. Dunn,et al.  Biomarkers as surrogate endpoints in cancer trials. , 2012, Seminars in oncology nursing.

[5]  K. Johnson,et al.  Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the biomarker-surrogacy (BioSurrogate) evaluation , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[6]  D. Sargent,et al.  Predicting Treatment Effect from Surrogate Endpoints and Historical Trials: An Extrapolation Involving Probabilities of a Binary Outcome or Survival to a Specific Time , 2012, Biometrics.

[7]  Debashis Ghosh,et al.  Meta‐analysis for Surrogacy: Accelerated Failure Time Models and Semicompeting Risks Modeling , 2012, Biometrics.

[8]  Jeremy MG Taylor,et al.  Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials. , 2011, Biostatistics.

[9]  Miguel A Hernán,et al.  The hazards of hazard ratios. , 2010, Epidemiology.

[10]  Tom Greene,et al.  Related Causal Frameworks for Surrogate Outcomes , 2009, Biometrics.

[11]  Michael LeBlanc,et al.  Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints , 2008, Clinical trials.

[12]  D. Sargent,et al.  Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  John A. Baron,et al.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[14]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  C. Weir,et al.  Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Laurence S. Freedman,et al.  Commentary on Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models by E. L. Korn, P. S. Albert and L. M. McShane , 2005 .

[17]  Paul S Albert,et al.  Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  B. Trock,et al.  A Pilot Study to Establish a Clinical Model to Perform Phase II Studies of Breast Cancer Chemopreventive Agents in Women at High Risk with Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints for Activity , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  S. Lam,et al.  A Randomized Phase IIb Trial of Pulmicort Turbuhaler (Budesonide) in People with Dysplasia of the Bronchial Epithelium , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[20]  M. Buyse,et al.  Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  P. Philip,et al.  Phase II study of capecitabine, irinotecan, and celecoxib in advanced colorectal cancer. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case‐study in advanced colorectal cancer , 2004 .

[23]  R. Labianca,et al.  Disease-free survival (DFS) vs. overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint for adjuvant colon cancer studies: Individual patient data from 12,915 patients on 15 randomized trials. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  B. Kramer,et al.  A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make , 2003, BMC medical research methodology.

[25]  H. Wainer Visual Revelations , 2002 .

[26]  D. Rubin,et al.  Principal Stratification in Causal Inference , 2002, Biometrics.

[27]  S G Baker,et al.  Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. , 2001, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[28]  R J Carroll,et al.  On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[29]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[30]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. , 1998, Biometrics.

[31]  P. Flandre Analysing survival in the presence of an auxiliary variable. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  M J Daniels,et al.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  D. Schoenfeld,et al.  Analysing survival in the presence of an auxiliary variable. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[34]  M S Pepe,et al.  Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[35]  D. Albanes,et al.  The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  S. Ellenberg Surrogate endpoints. , 1993, British Journal of Cancer.

[37]  C D Naylor,et al.  Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness? , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[38]  Margaret S. Pepe,et al.  Inference using surrogate outcome data and a validation sample , 1992 .

[39]  R Simon,et al.  Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[40]  R M Arnold,et al.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. , 1992, The American journal of medicine.

[41]  B. Graubard,et al.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[42]  H. Chernoff,et al.  Locally optimal design for comparing two probabilities from binomial data subject to misclassification , 1990 .

[43]  R. Prentice Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[44]  Juni Palmgren,et al.  Precision of double sampling estimators for comparing two probabilities , 1987 .