[Surrogate endpoints].

C Hill

PubMed · 10477379

[Surrogate endpoints].

Abstract

The main endpoint of a phase III trial in oncology must be relevant clinically. In practice, this endpoint is either the disease-free or the overall survival, which requires both long term follow-up and a large number of patients. In phase II trials, it is essential to proceed rapidly, and one therefore uses a surrogate endpoint. Surrogate endpoints are adequate for phase II trials. Their use for phase III trials should be restricted to the rare situations where their validity has been established for the therapeutic and a under study. This surrogate endpoint must be faster to obtain than the clinical endpoint it replaces. Ideally, it should capture all of the treatment effect on the main endpoint, i.e. there should be no effect of the treatment on survival, once the value of the surrogate endpoint is known.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic Humans Neoplasms Quality of Life Reproducibility of Results Treatment Outcome English Abstract Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

C Hill. [Surrogate endpoints].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10477379/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Early selection in a randomized phase II clinical trial.

A randomized phase II clinical trial design can be employed when one wishes to be able to select one of several similar therapies or variants of a therapy for inclusion in a subsequent, definitive, phase III trial. It is not necessary in this type of trial to formally identify a superior arm using the usual parameters and stringent criteria employed for hypothesis testing. Simon, Wittes and Ellenberg have described methods and sample sizes for selecting the superior arm from among k possible arms. In this paper, we describe an approach based on statistical selection theory which allows one to potentially make a decision to end accrual to a randomized phase II trial at an interim point of the trial, and to select one of two arms as being worthy of further evaluation in a subsequent study. This method requires that an adequate gap in the number of responses between the two arms be observed at the interim point in order to limit the probability that the selected arm is actually inferior by more than an indifference amount. Published in 2002 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic↗

PubMed2002

A flexible design for multiple armed screening trials by Daniel J. Sargent and Richard M. Goldberg, Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20: 1051-1060.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic↗

PubMed2002

An optimal two-stage phase II design utilizing complete and partial response information separately.

Phase II clinical trials in oncology are performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of a new treatment regimen. A common measure of efficacy for these trials is the proportion of patients who obtain a response measured by tumor shrinkage. It is standard practice to classify this response into the following categories: (1) complete response (CR); (2) partial response (PR); (3) stable disease; and (4) progression of disease. Tumor response is then treated as a binary variable whereby patients who achieve either a CR or a PR are considered responders and all others nonresponders. A two-stage design that allows for early termination of the trial if the treatment shows little efficacy such as Gehan or Simon gives equal weight to a CR and a PR. However, a CR, defined as complete disappearance of the tumor, is more likely than a PR to signal an important antitumor effect and result in a survival advantage. We argue that CRs and PRs should be considered separately, and hence we propose a two-stage design with a multilevel endpoint (i.e., CR, PR, and nonresponders). This design is an extension of Simon's optimal two-stage design and is based on a trinomial model. For most scenarios the proposed design results in an improvement in expected sample size compared to Simon's optimal design. Design optimization was performed by a direct search based on enumerating exact trinomial probabilities. Sample size tables are provided for parameter sets commonly used in the oncologic setting. Software is available by contacting the authors.

Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic↗