Abstract
Despite several decades of intensive clinical and biological research and significant progress in primary prevention, screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, cancer is still the second most common cause of death in developed countries, accounting for about one-fourth of total deaths [1]. Accordingly, an improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients is a powerful stimulus for researchers, regulatory agencies, and the health care industry and, of course, a high priority for patients and society. Similar to the HIV/AIDS community, there have been numerous efforts to accelerate approvals of new drugs but also to shorten the times required in their development and marketing, with positive as well as negative consequences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
World Health Organization Mortality estimates by cause, age, and sex for the year 2008 (2011) http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/ Accessed 31 October 2011
IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2010) Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Prentice RL (1989) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 8:431–440
Temple RJ (1995) A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT (eds) Clinical measurement in drug evaluation. Wiley New York, pp 1–22
Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework (2001). Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89–95
Shi Q, Sargent DJ (2009) Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol 14:102–111
Fleming TR, DeMets DL (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 125:605–613
Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2005) Surrogate end points in clinical research: hazardous to your health. Obstet Gynecol 105:1114–1118
Johnson JR, Ning YM, Farrell A et al (2011) Accelerated approval of oncology products: the food and drug administration experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:636–644
Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A et al (2010) Biomarkers and surrogate end points-the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:309–317
Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A (1992) Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 11:167–178
Buyse M, Molenberghs G (1998) Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54:1014–1029
Buyse M (2009) Use of meta-analysis for the validation of surrogate endpoints and biomarkers in cancer trials. Cancer J 15:421–425
Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M (eds) (2005) The evaluation of surrogate endpoint. Springer, New York
Robins JM, Greenland S (1992) Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3:143–155
Lassere MN (2008) The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints. Stat Methods Med Res 17:303–340
Sutton AJ, Higgins JP (2008) Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med 27:625–650
Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in metaanalyses. BMJ 327:557–560
Li Z, Meredith MP (2003) Exploring the relationship between surrogates and clinical outcomes: analysis of individual patient data vs. meta-regression on group-level summary statistics. J Biopharm Stat 13:777–792
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al, GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490
Parmelli E, Papini D, Moja L et al (2010) Updating clinical recommendations for breast, colorectal and lung cancer treatments: an opportunity to improve methodology and clinical relevance. Ann Oncol 22:188–194
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ciccone, G., Baldi, I. (2012). Surrogate Endpoints of Clinical Benefit. In: Aglietta, M., Regge, D. (eds) Imaging Tumor Response to Therapy. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2613-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2613-1_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2612-4
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2613-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)