Strength of Validation for Surrogate End Points Used in the US Food and Drug Administration's Approval of Oncology Drugs

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 713-725

  Kim, Chul ^a   Prasad, Vinay ^b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDICATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURROGATE END POINT; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 84973449789     PISSN: 00256196     EISSN: 19425546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. 1 Hirschfeld, S., Pazdur, R., Oncology drug development: United States Food and Drug Administration perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 42:2 (2002), 137–143.
2. 2 Johnson, J.R., Williams, G., Pazdur, R., End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 21:7 (2003), 1404–1411.
3. 3 Pazdur, R., Endpoints for assessing drug activity in clinical trials. Oncologist 13:suppl 2 (2008), 19–21.
4. 4 Sridhara, R., Johnson, J.R., Justice, R., Keegan, P., Chakravarty, A., Pazdur, R., Review of oncology and hematology drug product approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration between July 2005 and December 2007. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:4 (2010), 230–243.
5. 5 Miller, K., Wang, M., Gralow, J., et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:26 (2007), 2666–2676.
6. 6 Carpenter, D., Kesselheim, A.S., Joffe, S., Reputation and precedent in the bevacizumab decision. N Engl J Med, 365(2), 2011, e3.
7. 7 Prasad, V., Kim, C., Burotto, M., Vandross, A., The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med 175:8 (2015), 1389–1398.
8. 8 Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., Geys, H., The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1:1 (2000), 49–67.
9. 9 Freedman, L.S., Graubard, B.I., Schatzkin, A., Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 11:2 (1992), 167–178.
10. 10 Lassere, M.N., Johnson, K.R., Schiff, M., Rees, D., 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 Schema (BSES). BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 2012, 27.
11. 11 Torri, V., Simon, R., Russek-Cohen, E., Midthune, D., Friedman, M., Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:6 (1992), 407–414.
12. 12 Weir, C.J., Walley, R.J., Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med 25:2 (2006), 183–203.
13. 13 Taylor, R.S., Elston, J., The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports. Health Technol Assess, 13(8), 2009 iii, ix-xi, 1-50.
14. 14 Shi, Q., Sargent, D.J., Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol 14:2 (2009), 102–111.
15. 15 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology: executive summary. https://www.iqwig.de/download/A10-05_Executive_Summary_v1-1_Surrogate_endpoints_in_oncology.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed July 23, 2015.
16. 16 Kim, C., Prasad, V., Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of us food and drug administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med 175:12 (2015), 1992–1994.
17. 17 Gay, F., Larocca, A., Wijermans, P., et al. Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients. Blood 117:11 (2011), 3025–3031.
18. 18 Jaeckle, K., Wu, W., Kosel, M., Flynn, P., Buckner, J., Correlation of response with survival endpoints in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) treated on prospective North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) clinical trials. J Clin Oncol, 26, 2008, 2024.
19. 19 Jain, P., Kantarjian, H., Nazha, A., et al. Early responses predict better outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: results with four tyrosine kinase inhibitor modalities. Blood 121:24 (2013), 4867–4874.
20. 20 Oriana, C., Martin, H., Toby, P., et al. Complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: a case study for technology appraisal on the basis of surrogate outcomes evidence. Value Health 16:6 (2013), 1081–1090.
21. 21 Rosti, G., Testoni, N., Martinelli, G., Baccarani, M., The cytogenetic response as a surrogate marker of survival. Semin Hematol 40:2, suppl 2 (2003), 56–61.
22. 22 van de Velde, H.J., Liu, X., Chen, G., Cakana, A., Deraedt, W., Bayssas, M., Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 92:10 (2007), 1399–1406.
23. 23 Kong, X., Moran, M.S., Zhang, N., Haffty, B., Yang, Q., Meta-analysis confirms achieving pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts favourable prognosis for breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 47:14 (2011), 2084–2090.
24. 24 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 32:34 (2014), 3883–3891.
25. 25 Cortazar, P., Zhang, L., Untch, M., et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384:9938 (2014), 164–172.
26. 26 Ciccarese M, Bria E, Cuppone F, et al. Disease-free survival (DFS) as surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) in adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) trials for breast cancer (BC): meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring the magnitude of the benefit. Paper presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 43rd Annual Meeting; June 1-5, 2007; Chicago, IL.
27. 27 Matsubara, Y., Sakabayashi, S., Nishimura, T., et al. Surrogacy of tumor response and progression-free survival for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer resistant to both anthracyclines and taxanes. Int J Clin Oncol 16:6 (2011), 623–629.
28. 28 Hackshaw, A., Knight, A., Barrett-Lee, P., Leonard, R., Surrogate markers and survival in women receiving first-line combination anthracycline chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 93:11 (2005), 1215–1221.
29. 29 Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M., Piccart-Gebhart, M.J., et al. Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:12 (2008), 1987–1992.
30. 30 Miksad, R.A., Zietemann, V., Gothe, R., et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:4 (2008), 371–383.
31. 31 Ng, R., Pond, G.R., Tang, P.A., MacIntosh, P.W., Siu, L.L., Chen, E.X., Correlation of changes between 2-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival in adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1966 to 2006. Ann Oncol 19:3 (2008), 481–486.
32. 32 Sherrill, B., Amonkar, M., Wu, Y., et al. Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 99:10 (2008), 1572–1578.
33. 33 Beauchemin, C., Cooper, D., Lapierre, M.E., Yelle, L., Lachaine, J., Progression-free survival as a potential surrogate for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther 7 (2014), 1101–1110.
34. 34 Splinter, T.A., Response rate as criterium to evaluate chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 7:1 (1991), 91–104.
35. 35 Paesmans, M., Sculier, J.P., Libert, P., et al. Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur J Cancer 33:14 (1997), 2326–2332.
36. 36 Sekine, I., Kubota, K., Nishiwaki, Y., Sasaki, Y., Tamura, T., Saijo, N., Response rate as an endpoint for evaluating new cytotoxic agents in phase II trials of non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 9:10 (1998), 1079–1084.
37. 37 Bruzzi P, Sormani M, Tiseo M, Boni L, Rosell R, Ardizzoni A. Tumor response to chemotherapy as a surrogate endpoint of survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results of an individual patients data meta-analysis. Paper presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 43rd Annual Meeting; June 1-5, 2007; Chicago, IL.
38. 38 Tsujino, K., Kawaguchi, T., Kubo, A., et al. Response rate is associated with prolonged survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. J Thorac Oncol 4:8 (2009), 994–1001.
39. 39 Mandrekar, S.J., Qi, Y., Hillman, S.L., et al. Endpoints in phase II trials for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 5:1 (2010), 3–9.
40. 40 Li, X., Liu, S., Gu, H., Wang, D., Surrogate end points for survival in the target treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with gefitinib or erlotinib. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 138:11 (2012), 1963–1969.
41. 41 Blumenthal, G.M., Karuri, S.W., Zhang, H., et al. Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses. J Clin Oncol 33:9 (2015), 1008–1014.
42. 42 Johnson, K.R., Ringland, C., Stokes, B.J., et al. Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 7:9 (2006), 741–746.
43. 43 Penel, N., Cousin, S., Duhamel, A., Kramar, A., Activity endpoints reported in soft tissue sarcoma phase II trials: quality of reported endpoints and correlation with overall survival. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88:2 (2013), 309–317.
44. 44 Rose, P.G., Tian, C., Bookman, M.A., Assessment of tumor response as a surrogate endpoint of survival in recurrent/platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 117:2 (2010), 324–329.
45. 45 Singh, S., Wang, X., Law, C.H., Association between time to disease progression end points and overall survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Gastrointest Cancer Targets Ther 4 (2014), 103–113.
46. 46 Flaherty, K.T., Hennig, M., Lee, S.J., et al. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in metastatic melanoma: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol 15:3 (2014), 297–304.
47. 47 Hayashi, H., Okamoto, I., Morita, S., Taguri, M., Nakagawa, K., Postprogression survival for first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 23:6 (2012), 1537–1541.
48. 48 Sekine, I., Tamura, T., Kunitoh, H., et al. Progressive disease rate as a surrogate endpoint of phase II trials for non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 10:6 (1999), 731–733.
49. 49 Suzuki, H., Hirashima, T., Okamoto, N., et al. Relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with anticancer agents after first-line treatment failure. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 11:2 (2015), 121–128.
50. 50 Hayashi, H., Okamoto, I., Taguri, M., Morita, S., Nakagawa, K., Postprogression survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who receive second-line or third-line chemotherapy. Clin Lung Cancer 14:3 (2013), 261–266.
51. 51 Hotta, K., Suzuki, E., Di Maio, M., et al. Progression-free survival and overall survival in phase III trials of molecular-targeted agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 79:1 (2013), 20–26.
52. 52 Mauguen, A., Pignon, J.P., Burdett, S., et al. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients' data. Lancet Oncol 14:7 (2013), 619–626.
53. 53 Hotta, K., Fujiwara, Y., Matsuo, K., et al. Time to progression as a surrogate marker for overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 4:3 (2009), 311–317.
54. 54 Halabi, S., Rini, B., Escudier, B., Stadler, W.M., Small, E.J., Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint of overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 120:1 (2014), 52–60.
55. 55 Heng, D.Y., Xie, W., Bjarnason, G.A., et al. Progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with contemporary targeted therapy. Cancer 117:12 (2011), 2637–2642.
56. 56 Bria, E., Massari, F., Maines, F., et al. Progression-free survival as primary endpoint in randomized clinical trials of targeted agents for advanced renal cell carcinoma: correlation with overall survival, benchmarking and power analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 93:1 (2015), 50–59.
57. 57 Johnson, K.R., Liauw, W., Lassere, M.N., Evaluating surrogacy metrics and investigating approval decisions of progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 26:3 (2015), 485–496.
58. 58 Petrelli, F., Barni, S., Surrogate end points and postprogression survival in renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of first-line trials with targeted therapies. Clin Genitourin Cancer 11:4 (2013), 385–389.
59. 59 Delea, T.E., Khuu, A., Heng, D.Y., Haas, T., Soulieres, D., Association between treatment effects on disease progression end points and overall survival in clinical studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 107:7 (2012), 1059–1068.
60. 60 Petrelli, F., Pietrantonio, F., Cremolini, C., et al. Early tumour shrinkage as a prognostic factor and surrogate end-point in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and pooled-analysis. Eur J Cancer 51:7 (2015), 800–807.
61. 61 Kay, A., Higgins, J., Day, A.G., Meyer, R.M., Booth, C.M., Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points. Ann Oncol 23:6 (2012), 1646–1651.
62. 62 Sacher, A.G., Le, L.W., Leighl, N.B., Shifting patterns in the interpretation of phase III clinical trial outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the bar is dropping. J Clin Oncol 32:14 (2014), 1407–1411.
63. 63 Amir, E., Seruga, B., Martinez-Lopez, J., et al. Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, and market pricing of antineoplastic drugs. J Clin Oncol 29:18 (2011), 2543–2549.
64. 64 Bailar, J.C. III, Mosteller, F., Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals: amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 108:2 (1988), 266–273.
65. 65 Booth, C.M., Eisenhauer, E.A., Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable?. J Clin Oncol 30:10 (2012), 1030–1033.
66. 66 Shao, T., Wang, L., Templeton, A.J., et al. Use and misuse of waterfall plots. J Natl Cancer Inst, 106(12), 2014.
67. 67 Ebos, J.M., Kerbel, R.S., Antiangiogenic therapy: impact on invasion, disease progression, and metastasis. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8:4 (2011), 210–221.
68. 68 Iwamoto, F.M., Abrey, L.E., Beal, K., et al. Patterns of relapse and prognosis after bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology 73:15 (2009), 1200–1206.
69. 69 Miles, D., Harbeck, N., Escudier, B., et al. Disease course patterns after discontinuation of bevacizumab: pooled analysis of randomized phase III trials. J Clin Oncol 29:1 (2011), 83–88.
70. 70 Moore, T.J., Furberg, C.D., The safety risks of innovation: the FDA's Expedited Drug Development Pathway. JAMA 308:9 (2012), 869–870.
71. 71 Prasad, V., Double-crossed: why crossover in clinical trials may be distorting medical science. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:5 (2013), 625–627.
72. 72 Prasad, V., Grady, C., The misguided ethics of crossover trials. Contemp Clin Trials 37:2 (2014), 167–169.
73. 73 Kantoff, P.W., Higano, C.S., Shore, N.D., et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 363:5 (2010), 411–422.
74. 74 Prasad, V., Vandross, A., Characteristics of exceptional or super responders to cancer drugs. Mayo Clin Proc 90:12 (2015), 1639–1649.
75. 75 US Government Accountability Office. New drug apporval: FDA needs to enhance its oversight of drugs approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09866.pdf. Published September 2009. Accessed July 25, 2015.