Statistical controversies in clinical research: Assessing pathologic complete response as a trial-level surrogate end point for early-stage breast cancer

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 10-15

  Korn, Edward L ^a   Sachs, M C ^a   McShane, L M ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Pathologic complete response; Randomized clinical trial; Screening trials; Surrogate end point; Trial level surrogate end point

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DISEASE MARKER; EVENT FREE SURVIVAL; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATHOLOGIC COMPLETE RESPONSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; BREAST TUMOR; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84960095804     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv507     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Prowell TM, Pazdur R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. New Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2438-2441.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Pathological complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, October 2014.
3. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384: 164-172.
4. Berruti A, Amoroso V, Gallo F et al. Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-regression of 29 randomized prospective studies. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3883-3891.
5. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Holmes AP, Baselga J et al. First results from the phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06; NCCTG [Alliance] N063D) comparing one year of anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib alone, trastuzumab alone, their sequence, or their combination in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer. In ASCO Annual Meeting. Abstract LBA4. Presented 1 June 2014.
6. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2- positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomized open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 633-640.
7. de Azambuja E, Holmes AP, Piccart-Gebhart M et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): survival outcomes of a randomized open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial and their association with pathological complete response. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1137-1146.
8. Sledge G. Neoadjuvant doesn't predict adjuvant in breast cancer. Cancer Lett 2014; 40: 6-8.
9. DeMichele A, Yee D, Berry DA et al. The neoadjuvant model is still the future for drug development in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 2911-2915.
10. Berry D. In NeoALTTO & ALTTO trials, neoadjuvant response predicts adjuvant. Cancer Lett 2014; 40: 1, 4-6.
11. Berry D. Rejoinder to "Neoadjuvant doesn't predict adjuvant in breast cancer". Cancer Lett 2014; 40: 8-9.
12. Berry DA, Hudis CA. Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer as a basis for drug approval. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 875-876.
13. Buyse M, Molensberghs G, Burzykowski T et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 49-67.
14. Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med 2005; 24: 163-182.
15. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431-440.
16. Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B et al. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7199-7206.
17. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data:rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010; 340: 521-525.
18. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Paeoletti X et al. Statistical evaluation of surrogate endpoints with examples from cancer clinical trials. Biom J 2015 Feb 12 [epub ahead of print], doi: 10.1002/bimj.201400049.