Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34309669›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Correlation Between Surrogate End Points and Overall Survival in a Multi-institutional Clinicogenomic Cohort of Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung or Colorectal Cancer.

Kenneth L Kehl, Gregory J Riely, Eva M Lepisto, Jessica A Lavery, Jeremy L Warner, Michele L LeNoue-Newton, Shawn M Sweeney, Julia E Rudolph, Samantha Brown, Celeste Yu and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surrogate to predict overall survival in patients withESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Data Challenges for Externally Controlled Trials: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Kenneth L KehlDepartment of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gregory J RielyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Eva M LepistoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jessica A LaveryDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Jeremy L WarnerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Michele L LeNoue-NewtonVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Shawn M SweeneyAmerican Association for Cancer Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Julia E RudolphDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Samantha BrownDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Celeste YuDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Philippe L BedardDivision of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Deborah SchragDepartment of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Katherine S PanageasDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) Consortium
American Association For Cancer Research · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USHarvard University · USUniversity Health Network · CAVanderbilt University Medical Center · USPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CA

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Contemporary observational cancer research requires associating genomic biomarkers with reproducible end points; overall survival (OS) is a key end point, but interpretation can be challenging when multiple lines of therapy and prolonged survival are common. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and time to next treatment (TTNT) are alternative end points, but their utility as surrogates for OS in real-world clinicogenomic data sets has not been well characterized. Objective: To measure correlations between candidate surrogate end points and OS in a multi-institutional clinicogenomic data set. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) whose tumors were genotyped at 4 academic centers from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, and who initiated systemic therapy for advanced disease. Patients were followed up through August 31, 2020 (NSCLC), and October 31, 2020 (CRC). Statistical analyses were conducted on January 5, 2021. Exposures: Candidate surrogate end points included TTD; TTNT; PFS based on imaging reports only; PFS based on medical oncologist ascertainment only; PFS based on either imaging or medical oncologist ascertainment, whichever came first; and PFS defined by a requirement that both imaging and medical oncologist ascertainment have indicated progression. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the correlation between candidate surrogate end points and OS. Results: There were 1161 patients with NSCLC (648 women [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 63 [11] years) and 1150 with CRC (647 men [56.3%]; mean [SD] age, 54 [12] years) identified for analysis. Progression-free survival based on both imaging and medical oncologist documentation was most correlated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79; CRC: ρ = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75). Time to treatment discontinuation was least associated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50; CRC: ρ = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.19). Time to next treatment was modestly associated with OS (NSCLC: ρ = 0.60; 0.55-0.64; CRC: ρ = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.46). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that PFS based on both a radiologist and a treating oncologist determining that a progression event has occurred was the surrogate end point most highly correlated with OS for analysis of observational clinicogenomic data.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleGenomicsGenotypeHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRadiologyRetrospective StudiesTime-to-TreatmentBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID34309669
PMCPMC8314138
OpenAlexW3185217718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.