Mittal Abhenil, Kim Myung Sun, Dunn Shenna, Wright Kristin, Gyawali Bishal
Department of Oncology, Northeast Cancer Center, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Hematology/Medical Oncology, Compass Oncology, Portland, OR, USA.
EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Sep 13;76:102824. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102824. eCollection 2024 Oct.
Patients with cancer expect prolonged life (overall survival, OS) or better life (quality of life, QOL) from cancer treatments. However, majority of new cancer drugs are now being approved not based on improved OS or QOL, but based on surrogate endpoints such as tumor shrinkage or delayed tumor progression. These surrogate endpoints, including their validity as a proxy for overall survival, differ based on disease settings and lines of treatment but in general, most surrogate measures have weak correlation with outcomes that matter to patients. Nevertheless, they are being increasingly used as the basis for regulatory decisions. The current tension in this space is between adoption of surrogate endpoints for early access to cancer drugs versus the need for confirmation that the drugs improve outcomes that matter and not merely improve scan results or surrogate endpoints. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of surrogate endpoints currently used in oncology trials both in curative and advanced disease settings, including their definition, methodology for validation, existing evidence for their surrogacy, predictive versus prognostic reliability of surrogate endpoints, the promise of surrogate endpoints, their pitfalls, and the way forward. Using a Q&A format, we discuss answers to the most commonly asked questions regarding surrogate endpoints in oncology. Our review answers the following frequently asked questions about surrogate endpoints in oncology: how are surrogate endpoints defined? How are they validated? What is a patient-level versus trial-level surrogate? What are the benefits of using surrogate endpoints? What level of surrogacy is required for regular versus accelerated approval? Are we overusing surrogate endpoints? Should we use surrogate endpoints in adjuvant settings? Can surrogacy be extrapolated from one setting to another? What is the surrogacy of progression-free survival for OS and QOL? Why does PFS not correlated with OS or QOL? Why do regulators rely on surrogate endpoints? We end this article with a proposal on the way forward.
癌症患者期望通过癌症治疗延长生命(总生存期,OS)或提高生活质量(生活质量,QOL)。然而,现在大多数新型癌症药物获批并非基于OS或QOL的改善,而是基于替代终点,如肿瘤缩小或肿瘤进展延迟。这些替代终点,包括其作为总生存期替代指标的有效性,因疾病背景和治疗线而异,但总体而言,大多数替代指标与对患者重要的结局的相关性较弱。尽管如此,它们越来越多地被用作监管决策的依据。目前该领域的矛盾在于,采用替代终点以便早期获取癌症药物,与需要确认药物能改善重要结局而非仅仅改善扫描结果或替代终点之间的矛盾。在本文中,我们全面回顾了目前在肿瘤学试验中用于治愈性和晚期疾病背景的替代终点,包括其定义、验证方法、替代指标的现有证据、替代终点的预测性与预后可靠性、替代终点的前景、其缺陷以及未来方向。我们采用问答形式,讨论了肿瘤学中关于替代终点最常被问到的问题的答案。我们的综述回答了以下关于肿瘤学替代终点的常见问题:替代终点如何定义?如何验证?患者层面与试验层面的替代终点是什么?使用替代终点有哪些益处?常规批准与加速批准分别需要何种程度的替代指标?我们是否过度使用了替代终点?在辅助治疗背景下是否应使用替代终点?替代指标能否从一种背景外推至另一种背景?无进展生存期对于总生存期和生活质量的替代指标是什么?为什么无进展生存期与总生存期或生活质量不相关?为什么监管机构依赖替代终点?我们在本文结尾提出了未来方向的建议。