Abstract
Biomarkers and surrogate end points have great potential for use in clinical oncology, but their statistical validation presents major challenges, and few biomarkers have been robustly confirmed. Provisional supportive data for prognostic biomarkers, which predict the likely outcome independently of treatment, is possible through small retrospective studies, but it has proved more difficult to achieve robust multi-site validation. Predictive biomarkers, which predict the likely response of patients to specific treatments, require more extensive data for validation, specifically large randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis. Surrogate end points are even more challenging to validate, and require data demonstrating both that the surrogate is prognostic for the true end point independently of treatment, and that the effect of treatment on the surrogate reliably predicts its effect on the true end point. In this Review, we discuss the nature of prognostic and predictive biomarkers and surrogate end points, and examine the statistical techniques and designs required for their validation. In cases where the statistical requirements for validation cannot be rigorously achieved, the biological plausibility of an end point or surrogate might support its adoption. No consensus yet exists on processes or standards for pragmatic evaluation and adoption of biomarkers and surrogate end points in the absence of robust statistical validation.
Key Points
-
Candidate prognostic biomarkers are relatively easy to identify, but multi-site validation has rarely been done
-
Predictive biomarkers require extensive data for validation, based on large randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses
-
Surrogate end points require data demonstrating both that the surrogate is prognostic of the true end point, and that the effect of treatment on the surrogate correlates with that of the true end point
-
The biological plausibility of a biomarker or surrogate might support its adoption even in cases where full statistical validation is lacking
-
No consensus exists on the best approach for pragmatic evaluation and adoption of biomarkers and surrogate end points when robust statistical validation is lacking
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rifai, N., Gillette, M. A. & Carr, S. A. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 971–983 (2006).
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69, 89–95 (2001).
Temple, R. J. A regulatory authority's opinion about surrogate endpoints. In Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation (Eds Nimmo, W. S. & Tucker, G. T.) 17 (Wiley, New York, 1995).
Ransohoff, D. F. Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 309–314 (2004).
Goodsaid, F. M., Frueh, F. W. & Mattes, W. Strategic paths for biomarker qualification. Toxicology 245, 219–223 (2008).
Wagner, J. A., Williams, S. A. & Webster, C. J. Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 81, 104–107 (2007).
Goodsaid, F. & Frueh, F. Biomarker qualification pilot process at the US Food and Drug Administration. AAPS J. 9, E105–E198 (2007).
Clarke, M. Meta-analyses of adjuvant therapies for women with early breast cancer: the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group overview. Ann. Oncol. 17, 59–62 (2006).
Sørlie, T. et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10869–10874 (2001).
Sørlie, T. Molecular classification of breast tumors: toward improved diagnostics and treatments. Methods Mol. Biol. 360, 91–114 (2007).
Slamon, D. J. et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783–792 (2001).
Piccart-Gebhart, M. J. et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER-2 positive breast cancer. N. Eng. J. Med. 353, 1659–1672 (2005).
Romond, E. H. et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER-2 positive breast cancer. N. Eng. J. Med. 353, 1673–1684 (2005).
Slamon, D. et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab in HER2 positive early breast cancer patients: BCIRG 006 study. In Proc. 28th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symp. 1 (San Antonio, Texas, USA 2005).
Joensuu, H. et al. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 809–820 (2006).
Benjamin, R. S. et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors II: medical oncology and tumor response assessment. Semin. Oncol. 36, 302–311 (2009).
Gora-Tybor, J. & Robak, T. Targeted drugs in chronic myeloid leukemia. Curr. Med. Chem. 15, 3036–3051 (2008).
Amado, R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1626–1634 (2008).
Di Fiore, F. et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by Cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 96, 1166–1169 (2007).
Paik, S. et al. Benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab may not be confined to patients with IHC 3+ and/or FISH-positive tumors: Central testing results from NSABP B-31. J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting abstracts) 25, 511 (2007).
Perez, E. A. et al. Updated results of the combined analysis of NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31 adjuvant chemotherapy with/without trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting abstracts) 25, 512 (2007).
Buyse, M. Towards the validation of statistically reliable biomarkers. Eur. J. Cancer 41 (Suppl. 1) 89–95 (2007).
van 't Veer, L. J. et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 41 5, 530–536 (2002).
van de Vijver, M. J. et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999–2009 (2002).
Sotiriou, C. & Pusztai, L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 790–800 (2009).
Hayes, D. F., Trock, B. & Harris, A. L. Assessing the clinical impact of prognostic factors: when is “statistically significant” clinically useful? Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 52, 305–319 (1998).
Pepe, M. S., Janes, H., Longton, G., Leisenring, W. & Newcomb, P. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am. J. Epidemiol. 159, 882–890 (2004).
Royston, P., Parmar, M. K. & Altman, D. G. Visualizing length of survival in time-to-event studies: a complement to Kaplan–Meier plots. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100, 92–97 (2008).
Buyse, M. et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 1183–1192 (2006).
Desmedt, C. et al. Strong time dependence of the 76-gene prognostic signature for node-negative breast cancer patients in the TRANSBIG multicenter independent validation series. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 3207–3214 (2007).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
Peterson, B. & George, S. L. Sample size requirements and length of study for testing interaction in a 2 × k factorial design when time-to-failure is the outcome. Control. Clin. Trials 14, 511–522 (1993).
Mandrekar, S. J. & Sargent, D. J. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: one size does not fit all. J. Biopharm. Stat. 19, 530–542 (2009).
Mandrekar, S. J. & Sargent, D. J. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4027–4034 (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. (2009).
Sargent, D. J., Conley, B. A., Allegra, C. & Collette, L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 2020–2027 (2005).
Karapetis, C. S. et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1757–1765 (2008).
Bokemeyer, C. et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 663–671 (2009).
Van Cutsem, E. et al. KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The CRYSTAL experience. J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting abstracts) 26, 2 (2008).
Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D. & Geys, H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1, 49–67 (2000).
Estey, E. H., Shen, Y. & Thall, P. F. Effect of time to complete remission on subsequent survival and disease-free survival time in, AML, RAEB-t, and RAEB. Blood 95, 72–77 (2000).
Kern, W. et al. Early blast clearance by remission induction therapy is a major independent prognostic factor for both achievement of complete remission and long-term outcome in acute myeloid leukemia: data from the German AML Cooperative Group (AMLCG) 1992 Trial. Blood 101, 64–70 (2003).
Weir, C. J. & Walley, R. J. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat. Med. 25, 183–203 (2006).
Lassere, M. N. The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 17, 303–340 (2008).
Prentice, R. L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431–440 (1989).
Sargent, D. J. et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 8664–8670 (2005).
Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G. & Buyse, M. (Eds) The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints (Springer, New York, 2005).
Buyse, M. & Molenberghs, G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014–1029 (1998).
Buyse, M. et al. Relation between tumor response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 356, 373–378 (2000).
Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Geys, H., Buyse, M. & Vangeneugden, T. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Stat. Med. 25, 205–221 (2006).
Buyse, M., Burzykowski, T., Michiels, S. & Carroll, K. Individual- and trial-level surrogacy in colorectal cancer. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 17, 467–475 (2008).
Prentice, R. L. Surrogate and mediating endpoints: current status and future directions. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 216–217 (2009).
Molenberghs, G. et al. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Control. Clin. Trials 23, 607–625 (2002).
Alonso, A. & Molenberghs, G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics, 63, 180–186 (2007).
Buyse, M. Contributions of meta-analyses based on individual patient data to therapeutic progress in colorectal cancer. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 14, 95–101 (2009).
Shi, Q. & Sargent, D. J. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 14, 102–111 (2009).
Piedbois, P. & Buyse, M. Endpoints and surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer: a review of recent developments. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 20, 466–471 (2008).
Buyse, M. et al. Validation of biomarkers as surrogates for clinical endpoints. In Biomarkers in Clinical Drug Development (Eds Bloom, J. C. & Dean, R. A.) 149–168 (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2003).
Collette, L. et al. Is prostate-specific antigen a valid surrogate endpoint for survival in hormonally treated patients with metastatic prostate cancer? Joint research of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, the Limburgs Universitair Centrum, and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 6139–6148 (2005).
Burzykowski, T. & Buyse, M. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm. Stat. 5, 173–186 (2006).
Buyse, M. et al. Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5218–5224 (2007).
Burzykowski, T., Buyse, M., Sargent, D., Sakamoto, J. & Yothers, G. Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer. Lifetime Data Anal. 14, 54–64 (2008).
Miller, K. et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 2666–2676 (2007).
Sargent, D. J. & Hayes, D. F. Assessing the measure of a new drug: is survival the only thing that matters? J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1922–1923 (2008).
Ransohoff, D. F. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 1205–1219 (2007).
Pepe, M. S. et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1054–1061 (2001).
Altar, C. A. The Biomarkers Consortium: on the critical path of drug discovery. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83, 361–364 (2008).
McShane, L. M. et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2, 416–422 (2005).
Masood, S. & Bui, M. M. Prognostic and predictive value of HER2/neu oncogene in breast cancer. Microsc. Res. Tech. 59, 102–108 (2002).
Tournigand, C. et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 229–237 (2004).
Allegra, C. et al. End points in advanced colon cancer clinical trials: a review and proposal. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3572–3575 (2007).
Green, E., Yothers, G. & Sargent, D. J. Surrogate endpoint validation: statistical elegance versus clinical relevance. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 17, 477–486 (2008).
Lathia, C. D. et al. The value, qualification, and regulatory use of surrogate end points in drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 86, 32–43 (2009).
Rastelli, F. & Crispino, S. Factors predictive of response to hormone therapy in breast cancer. Tumori 9 4, 370–383 (2008).
Jackman, D. M. et al. Impact of epidermal growth factor eceptor and KRAS mutations on clinical outcomes in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer patients: results of an online tumor registry of clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 5267–5273 (2009).
Bogaerts, J. et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 3, 540–551 (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
M. Buyse is a stockholder/director with the International Drug Development Institute. D. J. Sargent is a consultant with the following companies: Almac, DiagnoCure, Exiqon, Genomic Health, Precision Therapeutics. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buyse, M., Sargent, D., Grothey, A. et al. Biomarkers and surrogate end points—the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7, 309–317 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.43
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.43
This article is cited by
-
Can incorporating genotyping data into efficacy estimators improve efficiency of early phase malaria vaccine trials?
Malaria Journal (2023)
-
Quantitative PET-based biomarkers in lymphoma: getting ready for primetime
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2023)
-
The scientific basis of combination therapy for chronic hepatitis B functional cure
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2023)
-
Baseline C-reactive protein predicts efficacy of the first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy in advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective, multicenter study
BMC Cancer (2023)
-
Quantification of prevalence, clinical characteristics, co-existence, and geographic variations of traditional Chinese medicine diagnostic patterns via latent tree analysis-based differentiation rules among functional dyspepsia patients
Chinese Medicine (2022)