SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2026
An alternative method to validate surrogate endpoints in oncology.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurrogate endpoints are often utilized to support drug efficacy claims. Hence, it is of paramount importance to validate the effectiveness of surrogate endpoints in correctly predicting clinical benefit, in order to ensure a fast and safe access to new drugs. This study aimed to explore the applicability of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and its Area Under Curve (AUC) for trial-level surrogate validation, and to compare the predictive power of surrogate threshold effects (STE) derived from AUC versus linear regression for survival benefits.
methodsBased on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer, we extracted the treatment effect data on surrogate endpoints (objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS)) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects on OS were dichotomized as statistically significant improvement and others. The ROC curve and its AUC were obtained by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of OS status at each surrogate treatment effect cutoff value. As a contrast, the linear regression was modeled to derive the determination coefficients ([Formula: see text]) between OS and surrogates. STEs were estimated using AUC and linear regression, respectively, and their performance in correctly predicting OS benefit status was analyzed and compared.
resultsA total of 87 trials were collected. Both approaches showed that PFS had better quality than ORR ([Formula: see text]: 0.45(95% CI, 0.30–0.61) vs. 0.21(95% CI, 0.1–0.36); AUC: 0.84(95% CI, 0.75–0.93) vs. 0.71(95% CI, 0.59–0.83)). The AUC-based STE performed substantially better in predicting significant OS benefit than the linear regression-based STE for both ORR (sensitivity: 81.3% vs. 0%; accuracy: 62.2% vs. 54.1%) and PFS (sensitivity: 88.9% vs. 41.2%; accuracy: 79.5% vs. 71.8%).
conclusionsThe ROC curve and its AUC are built on a binary indicator of the statistical significance of final-outcome treatment effect, thereby improving the accuracy of predicting true efficacy superiority. This approach demonstrates a potential in evaluating the ability of a surrogate endpoint to predict final-outcome benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.