ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
A framework to evaluate surrogate endpoints at the trial level: analysis in colorectal cancer.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurrogate endpoints are increasingly used as the basis of cancer drug approvals. A strong association between treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoint is essential for their validation as reliable endpoints. We assess the current evidence of trial-level surrogacy for colorectal cancer (CRC) endpoints through a novel framework.
methodsWe developed a framework to grade the quality of oncology surrogate endpoints in 7 domains of the surrogate relationship: data source quality (A-B); disease setting homogeneity (0-3); uniformness of surrogate and true endpoint definitions (0-3); number of trials evaluated (0-4); and individual- (0-2) and trial-level associations (0-8). We screened PubMed using keywords and medical subject headings terms for meta-analyses published before July 6, 2024, validating surrogate endpoint associations across CRC trials. Two reviewers blindly assessed each article before reaching a consensus score. The main outcomes were framework-derived evidence scores and reported trial-level associations (R2) with overall survival.
resultsA total of 18 articles were identified, containing 39 evaluations of 12 unique surrogate endpoints for overall survival. Evidence scores ranged from B6 to A23. Only disease-free survival consistently demonstrated high-quality evidence of trial-level surrogacy (≥A18, median R2 = 0.92). Progression-free survival and objective response rate were low-quality surrogates in metastatic CRC (progression-free survival: B6-A15, median R2 = 0.55; objective response rate: B6-A13, median R2 = 0.33). Other evaluated endpoints were demonstrated to be unreliable surrogates.
conclusionDisease-free survival shows high-quality surrogacy in stage II-III colon cancer. Endpoints identified in the metastatic setting demonstrate inconsistent surrogacy evidence. Reassessment and identification of new endpoints are warranted, particularly with immunotherapy.
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.