Background: In cancer randomized controlled trials (RCT), alternative endpoints are increasingly being used in place of overall survival (OS) to reduce sample size, duration and cost of trials. It is necessary to ensure that these endpoints are valid surrogates for OS. Our aim was to identify meta-analyses that evaluated surrogate endpoints for OS and assess the strength of evidence for each meta-analysis (MA).
Materials and methods: We performed a systematic review to identify MA of cancer RCTs assessing surrogate endpoints for OS. We evaluated the strength of the association between the endpoints based on (i) the German Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care guidelines and (ii) the Biomarker-Surrogate Evaluation Schema.
Results: Fifty-three publications reported on 164 MA, with heterogeneous statistical methods Disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) showed good surrogacy properties for OS in colorectal, lung and head and neck cancers. DFS was highly correlated to OS in gastric cancer.
Conclusion(s): The statistical methodology used to evaluate surrogate endpoints requires consistency in order to facilitate the accurate interpretation of the results. Despite the limited number of clinical settings with validated surrogate endpoints for OS, there is evidence of good surrogacy for DFS and PFS in tumor types that account for a large proportion of cancer cases.
Keywords: Cancer; Meta-analysis; Overall survival; Randomized controlled trial; Surrogate endpoint; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.