Statistical Methods in Medical Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst[PDF])
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, M. D.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, M. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on February 19, 2008
Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2008, doi:10.1177/0962280207081860
© 2008 SAGE Publications

Article

Practical issues arising in an exploratory analysis evaluating progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer

Michael D. Hughes*

Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.


   Abstract

This paper is based on a conference presentation in which several authors presented results from analyses of the same dataset concerning the evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials. In evaluating a potential surrogate endpoint, there is a hierarchy of information that might usually be considered desirable: 1) a biological rationale for surrogacy, 2) demonstration of the prognostic value of the surrogate endpoint in untreated patients and 3) in treated patients and 4) demonstration across randomized comparisons that differences in the effect of randomized treatments on the surrogate endpoint are associated with the corresponding differences in the effect on the clinical endpoint of interest. Results from analyses that might be used to address the third and four requirements are presented and some of the practical issues that arise in evaluating a surrogate endpoint, which would be relevant to many diseases, are illustrated. Although the results presented should not be seen as a definitive analysis of the value of PFS as a surrogate endpoint, concerns are identified about the potential lack of standardization of the definition of PFS or the frequency of evaluation of disease progression and the high leverage of one study in evaluating the association in addressing the fourth requirement.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?