Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39764569›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2024

Frequently asked questions on surrogate endpoints in oncology-opportunities, pitfalls, and the way forward.

Abhenil Mittal, Myung Sun Kim, Shenna Dunn, Kristin Wright, Bishal Gyawali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Clinical Benefit and Global Regulation of Bispecific Antibody Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Abhenil MittalDepartment of Oncology, Northeast Cancer Center, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Myung Sun KimHematology/Medical Oncology, Compass Oncology, Portland, OR, USA.
Shenna DunnDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Kristin WrightDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Bishal GyawaliDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with cancer expect prolonged life (overall survival, OS) or better life (quality of life, QOL) from cancer treatments. However, majority of new cancer drugs are now being approved not based on improved OS or QOL, but based on surrogate endpoints such as tumor shrinkage or delayed tumor progression. These surrogate endpoints, including their validity as a proxy for overall survival, differ based on disease settings and lines of treatment but in general, most surrogate measures have weak correlation with outcomes that matter to patients. Nevertheless, they are being increasingly used as the basis for regulatory decisions. The current tension in this space is between adoption of surrogate endpoints for early access to cancer drugs versus the need for confirmation that the drugs improve outcomes that matter and not merely improve scan results or surrogate endpoints. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of surrogate endpoints currently used in oncology trials both in curative and advanced disease settings, including their definition, methodology for validation, existing evidence for their surrogacy, predictive versus prognostic reliability of surrogate endpoints, the promise of surrogate endpoints, their pitfalls, and the way forward. Using a Q&A format, we discuss answers to the most commonly asked questions regarding surrogate endpoints in oncology. Our review answers the following frequently asked questions about surrogate endpoints in oncology: how are surrogate endpoints defined? How are they validated? What is a patient-level versus trial-level surrogate? What are the benefits of using surrogate endpoints? What level of surrogacy is required for regular versus accelerated approval? Are we overusing surrogate endpoints? Should we use surrogate endpoints in adjuvant settings? Can surrogacy be extrapolated from one setting to another? What is the surrogacy of progression-free survival for OS and QOL? Why does PFS not correlated with OS or QOL? Why do regulators rely on surrogate endpoints? We end this article with a proposal on the way forward.

Indexed as

Accelerated approvalClinical trialsSingle arm trialsSurrogate endpoints

Identifiers

PMID39764569
PMCPMC11701476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.