Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints

Author(s):  
Geert Molenberghs ◽  
Ziv Shkedy ◽  
Burzykowski Tomasz ◽  
Marc Buyse ◽  
Ariel Alonso Abad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199455
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Bogdan Grigore ◽  
Hedwig Blommestein ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Meilin Möllenkamp ◽  
...  

Background Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports ( k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Sarah Davis ◽  
Paul Tappenden ◽  
Ruth Garside ◽  
Ken Stein ◽  
...  

Objectives: Licensing of, and coverage decisions on, new therapies should rely on evidence from patient-relevant endpoints such as overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, evidence from surrogate endpoints may also be useful, as it may not only expedite the regulatory approval of new therapies but also inform coverage decisions. It is, therefore, essential that candidate surrogate endpoints be properly validated. However, there is no consensus on statistical methods for such validation and on how the evidence thus derived should be applied by policy makers.Methods: We review current statistical approaches to surrogate-endpoint validation based on meta-analysis in various advanced-tumor settings. We assessed the suitability of two surrogates (progression-free survival [PFS] and time-to-progression [TTP]) using three current validation frameworks: Elston and Taylor's framework, the German Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care's (IQWiG) framework and the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3).Results: A wide variety of statistical methods have been used to assess surrogacy. The strength of the association between the two surrogates and OS was generally low. The level of evidence (observation-level versus treatment-level) available varied considerably by cancer type, by evaluation tools and was not always consistent even within one specific cancer type.Conclusions: Not in all solid tumors the treatment-level association between PFS or TTP and OS has been investigated. According to IQWiG's framework, only PFS achieved acceptable evidence of surrogacy in metastatic colorectal and ovarian cancer treated with cytotoxic agents. Our study emphasizes the challenges of surrogate-endpoint validation and the importance of building consensus on the development of evaluation frameworks.


2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1063-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylwia Bujkiewicz ◽  
John R. Thompson ◽  
Richard D. Riley ◽  
Keith R. Abrams

Author(s):  
Alberto Martini ◽  
Giorgio Gandaglia ◽  
Alberto Briganti

Lung Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 128 ◽  
pp. 113-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kentaro Ito ◽  
Satoru Miura ◽  
Tadashi Sakaguchi ◽  
Kenta Murotani ◽  
Nobuyuki Horita ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document