0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation | Health Care Reform

The Strength of Association Between Surrogate End Points and Survival in Oncology A Systematic Review of Trial-Level Meta-analyses FREE

Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH1; Chul Kim, MD, MPH1; Mauricio Burotto, MD1; Andrae Vandross, MD2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Medical Oncology Service, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
2Division of Medical Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389-1398. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology is important to understand because surrogate end points are frequently used in oncology clinical trials, supporting US Food and Drug Administration approvals and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations.

Objective  To identify and evaluate trial-level meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point and overall survival in medical oncology. Trial-level correlations test whether treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final end point and are widely considered the strongest evidence to validate a surrogate end point.

Evidence Review  Our literature search was built on earlier reported data sets and updated with Google Scholar and MEDLINE searches conducted on December 26, 2014. For MEDLINE, search terms included (“regression” or “correlation”) and “surrogate” and “end point [or endpoint]” and (“oncology” or “cancer”). For Google scholar, search terms included (“regression” or “correlation”) and “surrogate end point [or endpoint]” and “overall survival” and “trial level.” A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full in addition to articles identified through prior reviews.

Findings  We found 36 articles in which 65 specific correlations between a surrogate end point and survival were identified. Surrogate end points were studied in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings. The most common sources for trials included in the 36 articles were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28%), and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39%). Four meta-analyses (11%) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14%) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Among these 5 studies, only 352 of 684 eligible trials (51.1%) were included in the analyses. More than half of reported correlations (34 of 65; 52%) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25%) were of medium strength (r > 0.7 to r < 0.85), and 15 of 65 (23%) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival.

Conclusions and Relevance  Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low correlations with survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate end points in oncology is limited.

Figures in this Article

Although there is growing recognition that adopting new medical practices based on improvements in surrogate outcomes can lead to misleading conclusions,16 surrogate end points continue to play a prominent role in oncology.7 In the United States, most new cancer drugs are approved based on surrogate measures,8 such as response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS), through the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Accelerated Approval pathway. In addition, clinical practice guidelines often expand treatment recommendations for approved drugs based on studies assessing surrogates. For example, the drug carfilzomib (Kyprolis; Onxy Pharmaceuticals) received FDA approval in 2012 based on RR for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. In 2013, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) expanded the drug’s indication to include untreated myeloma—based on RR in 2 small, uncontrolled phase 1/2 studies9,10 (category 2A).11 Notably, NCCN endorsement obliges many commercial insurers and Medicare to reimburse the therapy.1214 Thus, surrogate end points are used both to introduce new cancer drugs and to promote new uses for the drugs we already have.

The use of surrogate end points in oncology has led to use of toxic drugs that do not improve survival. For example, bevacizumab (Avastin; Roche/Genentech) gained FDA accelerated approval for metastatic breast cancer in 2008 based on evidence that it could improve PFS.15 In 2011, that approval was withdrawn when multiple randomized trials confirmed that bevacizumab did not improve overall survival and that gains in PFS were more modest than those seen in the earlier trial.16 Nevertheless, Medicare and other insurers are still obliged to pay for bevacizumab because it remains endorsed by the NCCN for this indication.14

For surrogates such as PFS or tumor RR to be reliable, it is important that they are validated. Several authors have described statistical methods to validate surrogates,1721 but the framework that uses a hierarchy (Figure 1) is the most useful.22 In this model, level 3 is surrogacy based on biological plausibility alone. Level 2 occurs when a strong correlation exists between the surrogate and the final end point across cohorts or at the level of the individual patient. The highest level is trial-level surrogacy, meaning that across many trials treatments that improve the surrogate end point also improve the final outcome. Trial-level surrogacy directly asks the question that faces regulators and guideline writers: “If a drug improves a surrogate, will it also improve survival?” Others have noted that individual patient correlations do not directly validate surrogate measures.2325

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Hierarchy of Evidence for Surrogate End Point and Overall Survival Association
Graphic Jump Location

Establishing trial-level (level 1) surrogacy requires a meta-analysis of all randomized trials on a question of interest, with each trial serving as a unique data point. The x coordinate is typically the improvement in the surrogate when a drug is used, and the y coordinate is the improvement in the final outcome. Regression analysis is typically performed to assess what correlation exists between the change in the surrogate end point and the change in overall survival, across the randomized studies. The correlation coefficient (r) for the analysis, ranging from 0 to 1, provides a measure of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation.

Two general medical examples can illustrate this approach. Consider the question of hypertension (the surrogate), blood pressure control (the intervention), and adverse cardiovascular end points (the final outcome). A level 2 analysis would show that groups of patients with higher average blood pressure have worse cardiovascular outcomes or that this correlation is observed at an individual patient level. A level 1 or trial-level analysis would show that across many trials, drugs that lowered blood pressure also decreased cardiovascular events. If a drug lowered blood pressure by 10%, and another lowered it by 20%, we would “validate” hypertension as a surrogate if there were fewer cardiovascular events for the drug with greater blood pressure reduction. Looking at many blood pressure trials, one could perform regression analysis and draw a general conclusion about the relationship between blood pressure reduction and adverse outcomes. In fact, this analysis has been performed.17

The case of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) postmyocardial infarction illustrates the importance of level 1 analysis. Although studies showed a correlation between frequent PVCs and death26 (level 2), and certain anti-arrhythmic drugs reduce PVCs, it did not follow that anti-arrhythmic drugs (level 1) that lowered PVCs reduced mortality. In fact, a randomized clinical trial showed that these drugs actually increased mortality.27 Thus, only a level 1 analysis asks the right question: “Can we can trust a reduction in PVCs as a reliable surrogate for improved survival in pharmacologic trials?” Because oncology typically has dozens of trials examining both surrogate end points and survival in many clinical situations, performing level 1 analyses is more straightforward than in many other medical fields. For these reasons, we only examined level 1 studies.

We sought to examine all level 1 studies aiming to validate a surrogate in oncology. Specifically, we asked what percentage of these meta-analyses used data from published and unpublished studies. We also ascertained the median number of studies used to establish surrogacy in these studies and the reported correlation coefficients (r).

Eligible Studies

We identified meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials quantifying the association between a surrogate end point—RR, pathologic complete response, locoregional control, disease-free survival, event-free survival, time to progression, and/or PFS—and overall survival (OS) in medical oncology. As such, we excluded studies of radiation therapies, surgery, procedures, or supportive measures.

We sought only studies that examined trial-level correlations in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials—ie, level 1 surrogate studies. We placed no restriction on the setting of medical therapy; thus, we include analyses in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, locally advanced, and metastatic settings.

We excluded all analyses that did not examine trial-level (level 1) surrogacy. Specifically, we excluded analyses that only studied individual patient level correlations or those that did not examine the difference between investigational and control arms, considering each trial arm as a unique data point (level 2). We excluded conference abstracts, letters to the editor, and descriptive reviews. Finally, we excluded meta-analyses that used each treating center or nation (rather than each trial) as a unique data point. We were not convinced that such analyses accurately capture the question of our study because the individual data points in such analyses are no longer independent (comparisons are both within and across trial) and may spuriously inflate trial-level correlation. Nevertheless, including these studies20,2830 would not have changed our results.

Literature Search

We constructed our data set by updating prior systematic reviews. An analysis by Sherril et al,31 conducted in October 2010, systematically identified all studies prior to that date that studied surrogate end points in oncology. Over 1000 articles were screened in that investigation, and all articles assessing the relationship between a surrogate end point and overall survival were listed. We then evaluated this list to ensure that the articles performed trial-level correlation—all other analyses were discarded. We also drew on a prior report commissioned for the National Institutes of Clinical Excellence, which identified meta-analyses of surrogate end points in malignant solid tumors.32,33 Again, only trial-level analyses were selected from this set.

We built on this data set, updating it for the last 4 years. Specifically, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were searched with the following search terms on December 26, 2014: For MEDLINE, search terms included (“regression” or “correlation”) and “surrogate” and “end point [or endpoint]” and (“oncology” or “cancer”). For Google scholar, search terms included (“regression” or “correlation”) and “surrogate end point [or endpoint]” and “overall survival” and “trial level.” A total of 108 abstracts were retrieved, and 62 articles were read in full.

End Points Assessed

Descriptive statistics were ascertained for the following end points: the percentage of meta-analyses that used data from published and unpublished studies, the number of individual randomized trials included in each surrogate meta-analyses, and the reported correlation coefficients. We considered convenience sample to mean a set of trials that the authors were able to obtain readily. We only credited authors with performing a search of the published literature, meeting abstracts, and/or unpublished trials if they performed a systematic search. We scored strength of trial-level correlation according to a modification to surrogate criteria proposed by the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care34: low correlation (r ≤ 0.7), medium strength correlation (r > 0.7 to r < 0.85), and high correlation (r ≥ 0.85). The specific cut points were adapted to function even when confidence intervals were not presented. Finally, for meta-analyses using published trials, abstracts, and registered studies, we investigated what percentage of eligible studies were ultimately included in analyses.

We identified 36 articles20,23,25,30,3568 that met our inclusion criteria and were considered trial-level or level 1 analyses. Claims of surrogacy were examined for 19 distinct clinical questions in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, metastatic, and locally advanced settings (eTable in the Supplement).

The sources of randomized clinical trials included in the 36 articles most commonly were systematic reviews of the published literature (10 of 36; 28%) and published literature and meeting abstracts (14 of 36; 39%). Four meta-analyses (11%) used a convenience sample, and only 5 studies (14%) attempted to include unpublished trials by surveying clinical trial registries. Figure 2 summarizes search strategies.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Distribution of Data Sources Used in the Evaluated Surrogacy End Point Trials
Graphic Jump Location

Across the 36 studies, we noted 65 unique trial-level analyses. The median number of individual randomized clinical trials used in these analyses was 21, with as few as 9 and as many as 191 trials. For each analysis, we documented the study characteristics and the correlation coefficient (r) for all trial-level analyses (Table 1). There were 65 trial-level correlations scored according to criteria proposed by the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Figure 3).34 More than half of trial-level correlations (34 of 65; 52%) were of low strength (r ≤ 0.7). Approximately a quarter (16 of 65; 25%) were of medium strength (r > 0.7 to r < 0.85), and 15 of 65 (23%) were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.85) with survival.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Summary of Trial-Level Surrogate Meta-analyses Testing the Validity of Surrogate End Points in Oncology
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Correlations by Treatment Setting

We scored strength of trial-level correlation according to a modification to surrogate criteria proposed by the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care34: low correlation (r ≤ 0.7), medium strength correlation (r > 0.7 to r < 0.85), and high correlation (r ≥ 0.85).

Graphic Jump Location

We further examined the 5 studies39,41,48,66,68 that analyzed both published and unpublished trials. Although these articles searched the broadest possible collection of trials, they were unable to obtain data from all relevant studies. Table 2 lists the numbers of eligible and included trials for each of these meta-analyses. Notably, only 352 of 684 eligible studies (51.1%) were ultimately included. Reasons for omission included missing or lost data,41,74 missing information on progression,68 or missing median PFS or median OS reports.48,66

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Included Meta-analyses of Both Published and Unpublished Reports

We also examined the 15 correlations of high strength. Six occurred in the adjuvant setting,23,25,3841 6 in the metastatic setting,41,47,52,55,62,67 and 3 in the locally advanced setting.40,41 The median number of individual randomized trials included in these analyses was 14. Notably, 3 high correlations occurred in the same setting—adjuvant colorectal cancer—and 4 others occurred in settings where multiple other studies had found lesser correlations, specifically: metastatic breast47 and colon cancer52,55,58 (Table 1). In both these settings, the largest analyses conducted to date found low correlation.48,50

Most trial-level meta-analyses in oncology found low correlation between a surrogate end point and overall survival, and all were based on only a subset of clinical trial evidence. Our findings call into question the widespread use of surrogate end points in oncology as a basis for treatment decisions.

Trial-level or level 1 meta-analyses are the highest form of evidence that surrogate end points can predict efficacy regarding final outcomes, such as overall survival, for new therapies or new combinations (Figure 1)22,23,75 The majority of these claims resulted in correlations of low (52%) or medium strength (25%) (Figure 3), which are generally considered insufficient evidence on which to base clinical or regulatory decisions.34

We were unable to identify any analyses that looked at all randomized trials on a topic. Most analyses relied on published articles (28%) or articles and meeting abstracts (39%), and only 5 authors (14%) sought unpublished trials. Even when authors were able to identify published and unpublished studies, they were unable to obtain data from all eligible trials. Only 51.5% of eligible studies were ultimately included in even the most rigorous meta-analyses (Table 2). The major barriers to including more studies that we noted were that primary investigators did not provide data, or primary study publications did not include information that the meta-analysts needed, such as the rates of surrogate improvement or improvement in overall survival.

Our findings suggest that most correlations of surrogacy in oncology are based on only a subset of potentially informative trials. Unpublished trials (and those that do not report data that meta-analysts require) may have poorer correlations than those that are published, and such discrepancies may contribute to reluctance among sponsors and authors to submit those findings to journals and conferences and to a poorer likelihood of acceptance.

The use of surrogate end points in oncology, particularly PFS, has grown in recent years and it is frequently the primary end point of cancer clinical trials and the basis for regulatory approval of novel agents.8,7678 Surrogate end points are also used as the basis of many NCCN recommendations, which obliges many insurers and Medicare to cover those drugs for those indications.1214 Our analysis confirms that the use of this end point occurs beyond the specific settings in which it has been validated.76 Simply because a surrogate is measureable does not make it predictive or meaningful,76 and our analysis builds on a prior study that concludes that the association between surrogates and survival in oncology is generally poor.33

High-profile medical reversals, such as the case of bevacizumab in breast cancer, emphasize the dangers of excessive reliance on unvalidated surrogates.79,80 Although bevacizumab was approved for breast cancer on the basis of an improvement in PFS,15,16 this surrogate-survival correlation is not well supported. We identified 8 meta-analyses examining whether gains in PFS predict overall survival in metastatic breast cancer. Six reported low correlation; 1 reported medium correlation; and only 1 reported a strong correlation (Table 1). Despite this evidence, in 2012 another drug, everolimus, was approved for metastatic breast cancer based on improvement in PFS.81 In 2014, updated follow-up from the everolimus study did not find an overall survival benefit.82 In 2015, palbociclib received accelerated approval for metastatic breast cancer on the basis of improvement in PFS. Again, there is no demonstration of an overall survival advantage.83 Both palbociclib and everolimus remain on the market.

In 2007, liposomal doxorubicin received FDA approval for treatment of multiple myeloma based on a delay in time to progression when given in combination with bortezomib compared with bortezomib alone.84 In our investigation, we were unable to identify any analysis validating this surrogate and survival in multiple myeloma, and an updated analysis of liposomal doxorubicin confirms that the drug confers no survival benefit.85 Liposomal doxorubicin remains FDA approved.

The FDA’s use of pathologic complete response as grounds for accelerated approval in the neoadjuvant setting (the basis for the approval of pertuzumab [Perjeta; Roche/Genentech]) also appears to run counter to both meta-analyses we identified. Both meta-analyses on this topic found that improvements in pathologic complete response were poorly correlated with subsequent event-free survival and OS35,36 (Table 1).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our study. First, the specific thresholds we used to grade the strength of correlation were adapted from a guidance document but have not been externally validated and are subject to disagreement. Although we believe that few would dispute that a correlation coefficient (r) below 0.7 is weak support for a surrogate end point, some may be critical of the thresholds for medium and high strength. For this reason, we provide all coefficients in Table 1 to permit alternative analyses.

Second, we cannot say whether correlations will improve or weaken based on a more comprehensive assessment of clinical trials. However, prior research has found that unpublished trials are different than published studies.8691 Just as meta-analyses on specific clinical topics may change with consideration of published and unpublished evidence,92,93 the strength of surrogacy may also change with a more comprehensive collection of data. However, this is an assumption and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, we were unable to identify even 1 study that considered the totality of the evidence.

Third, the use of crossover in cancer clinical trials is thought to complicate the role of surrogacy in oncology. Unidirectional crossover from the control or placebo arm of cancer trials to the experimental drug (but not vice versa) is thought to explain why some cancer drugs that improve PFS fail to improve OS. However, crossover is unlikely to affect our analysis because most of the individual randomized trials included in the surrogate validation studies we examined occurred prior to the widespread use of crossover.

Moreover, there are several reasons to question the common narrative regarding crossover. First, effective cancer drugs can show overall survival benefits despite crossover.9496 Second, favorable PFS but negative OS results seen with everolimus,97 palbociclib,83 and bevacizumab98 in metastatic breast cancer occurred in the absence of crossover. And finally, there are several alternative interpretations for the effect of crossover, including that crossover can hide the harms of a drug or a mask a lack of clinical benefit.99,100 For these reasons, we do not believe that crossover alters our findings.

Finally, a recent study suggests that approving new drugs based on surrogates (even inaccurate ones) may provide a greater benefit for society than waiting for OS data.101 The authors found favorable societal benefits for approving non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) drugs with PFS benefits of 3 months or more. This occurred despite the fact that the authors noted a poor correlation (as we also did in Table 1) between net mean PFS and OS in NSCLC cancer (r = 0.56). The major limitation of this analysis, like other modeling studies, is that it rests on a number of assumptions. For instance, the authors likely overestimate the delay between PFS and OS results by using date of publication rather than the data cutoff date. Also the authors draw broad conclusions from a very small set of trials, ie, the few NSCLC trials with greater than 3-month PFS gains from an overall set of 27 trials. Finally, the model does not account for the wider unintended consequences of approval based on weak surrogates, which may encourage the pharmaceutical industry to pursue even more cancer drugs with marginal to no benefits.102

Most trial-level validation studies of surrogate end points in oncology find low or medium strength correlations with overall survival. All validation studies use only a subset of available trials. The evidence that surrogate end points predict overall survival in oncology is limited.

Accepted for Publication: April 11, 2015.

Corresponding Author: Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, 10/12N226, Bethesda, MD 20892 (vinayak.prasad@nih.gov).

Published Online: June 22, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829.

Author Contributions: Dr Prasad had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Prasad.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Prasad, Kim, Burotto, Vandross.

Drafting of the manuscript: Prasad, Kim.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Prasad, Kim, Burotto, Vandross.

Statistical analysis: Prasad, Kim.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Prasad, Burotto, Vandross.

Study supervision: Prasad.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of Drs Prasad, Kim, and Burotto do not reflect those of the National Cancer Institute.

Svensson  S, Menkes  DB, Lexchin  J.  Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):611-612.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Vandross  A.  Cardiovascular primary prevention: how high should we set the bar? Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):656-659.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fleming  TR, DeMets  DL.  Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605-613.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Messerli  FH, Bangalore  S.  ALTITUDE trial and dual RAS blockade: the alluring but soft science of the surrogate end point. Am J Med. 2013;126(3):e1-e3.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yudkin  JS, Lipska  KJ, Montori  VM.  The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ciani  O, Buyse  M, Garside  R,  et al. Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study.http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f457. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Shi  Q, Sargent  DJ.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009;14(2):102-111.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fauber  JCE. FDA approves cancer drugs without proof they're extending lives.http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/fda-approves-cancer-drugs-without-proof-theyre-extending-lives-b99348000z1-280437692.html. Accessed December 14, 2014.
Korde  N, Zingone  A, Kwok  M,  et al Phase II clinical and correlative study of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. J Clin Oncol. 2012(suppl);abstr e18568.
Jakubowiak  AJ, Dytfeld  D, Griffith  KA,  et al.  A phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone as a frontline treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120(9):1801-1809.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Myeloma NgM [registration required].http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloma.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Tillman  K, Burton  B, Jacques  LB, Phurrough  SE.  Compendia and anticancer therapy under Medicare. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):348-350.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McGivney  WT.  Medicare recognizes NCCN compendium. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2008;6(7):635.
McGivney  WT.  NCCN guidelines and their impact on coverage policy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(6):625.
Miller  K, Wang  M, Gralow  J,  et al.  Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(26):2666-2676.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carpenter  D, Kesselheim  AS, Joffe  S.  Reputation and precedent in the bevacizumab decision. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(2):e3.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lassere  MN, Johnson  KR, Schiff  M, Rees  D.  Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the Biomarker-Surrogacy (BioSurrogate) Evaluation Schema (BSES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):27.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Torri  V, Simon  R, Russek-Cohen  E, Midthune  D, Friedman  M.  Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84(6):407-414.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Freedman  LS, Graubard  BI, Schatzkin  A.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167-178.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Molenberghs  G, Burzykowski  T, Renard  D, Geys  H.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2000;1(1):49-67.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weir  CJ, Walley  RJ.  Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006;25(2):183-203.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Elston  J, Taylor  RS.  Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):6-13.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Burzykowski  T, Michiels  S, Carroll  K.  Individual- and trial-level surrogacy in colorectal cancer. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(5):467-475.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prentice  RL.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):431-440.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sargent  DJ, Wieand  HS, Haller  DG,  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. 2005;23(34):8664-8670.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pratt  CM, Moyé  LA.  The cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial: casting suppression in a different light. Circulation. 1995;91(1):245-247.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Echt  DS, Liebson  PR, Mitchell  LB,  et al.  Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(12):781-788.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Laporte  S, Squifflet  P, Baroux  N,  et al.  Prediction of survival benefits from progression-free survival benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis of 2334 patients from 5 randomised trials. BMJ Open. 2013;3(3):e001802.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M.  Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006;5(3):173-186.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M.  Use of meta-analysis for the validation of surrogate endpoints and biomarkers in cancer trials. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):421-425.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sherrill  B, Kaye  JA, Sandin  R, Cappelleri  JC, Chen  C.  Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology. Onco Targets Ther. 2012;5:287-296.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davis  S, Tappenden  P, Cantrell  A. A review of studies examining the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced or metastatic cancer.http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/PFSOS%20Report.FINAL.06.08.12.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Ciani  O, Davis  S, Tappenden  P,  et al.  Validation of surrogate endpoints in advanced solid tumors: systematic review of statistical methods, results, and implications for policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):312-324.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care [Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen] (IQWiG). Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology: executive summary.http://www.iqwig.de/download/A10-05_Executive_Summary_v1-1_Surrogate_endpoints_in_oncology.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2014.
Cortazar  P, Zhang  L, Untch  M,  et al.  Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164-172.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berruti  A, Amoroso  V, Gallo  F,  et al.  Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-regression of 29 randomized prospective studies. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(34):3883-3891.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ng  R, Pond  GR, Tang  PA, MacIntosh  PW, Siu  LL, Chen  EX.  Correlation of changes between 2-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival in adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1966 to 2006. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):481-486.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M, Yothers  G, Sakamoto  J, Sargent  D.  Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer. Lifetime Data Anal. 2008;14(1):54-64.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Oba  K, Paoletti  X, Alberts  S,  et al; GASTRIC group.  Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(21):1600-1607.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Michiels  S, Le Maître  A, Buyse  M,  et al; MARCH and MACH-NC Collaborative Groups.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in locally advanced head and neck cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):341-350.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mauguen  A, Pignon  JP, Burdett  S,  et al; Surrogate Lung Project Collaborative Group.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients’ data. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):619-626.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bruzzi  P, Del Mastro  L, Sormani  MP,  et al.  Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):5117-5125.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hackshaw  A, Knight  A, Barrett-Lee  P, Leonard  R.  Surrogate markers and survival in women receiving first-line combination anthracycline chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(11):1215-1221.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M, Piccart-Gebhart  MJ,  et al.  Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):1987-1992.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Miksad  RA, Zietemann  V, Gothe  R,  et al.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(4):371-383.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sherrill  B, Amonkar  M, Wu  Y,  et al.  Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(10):1572-1578.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilkerson  J, Fojo  T.  Progression-free survival is simply a measure of a drug’s effect while administered and is not a surrogate for overall survival. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):379-385.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Beauchemin  C, Cooper  D, Lapierre  ME, Yelle  L, Lachaine  J.  Progression-free survival as a potential surrogate for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:1101-1110.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Petrelli  F, Barni  S.  Surrogate endpoints in metastatic breast cancer treated with targeted therapies: an analysis of the first-line phase III trials. Med Oncol. 2014;31(1):776.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johnson  KR, Ringland  C, Stokes  BJ,  et al.  Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(9):741-746.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chirila  C, Odom  D, Devercelli  G,  et al.  Meta-analysis of the association between progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(5):623-634.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sidhu  R, Rong  A, Dahlberg  S.  Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for survival in chemotherapy and targeted agent metastatic colorectal cancer trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):969-976.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Thirion  P, Carlson  RW, Burzykowski  T, Molenberghs  G, Piedbois  P; Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer.  Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2000;356(9227):373-378.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tang  PA, Bentzen  SM, Chen  EX, Siu  LL.  Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4562-4568.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Giessen  C, Laubender  RP, Ankerst  DP,  et al.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 50 randomized first-line trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(1):225-235.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shi  Q, de Gramont  A, Grothey  A,  et al.  Individual patient data analysis of progression-free survival versus overall survival as a first-line end point for metastatic colorectal cancer in modern randomized trials: findings from the analysis and research in cancers of the digestive system database. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):22-28.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Giessen  C, Laubender  RP, Ankerst  DP,  et al.  Surrogate end points in second-line treatment for mCRC: a systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(2):187-193.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Burzykowski  T, Carroll  K,  et al.  Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5218-5224.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Amir  E, Seruga  B, Kwong  R, Tannock  IF, Ocaña  A.  Poor correlation between progression-free and overall survival in modern clinical trials: are composite endpoints the answer? Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(3):385-388.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paoletti  X, Oba  K, Bang  YJ,  et al; GASTRIC group.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer trials: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(21):1667-1670.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shitara  K, Matsuo  K, Muro  K, Doi  T, Ohtsu  A.  Correlation between overall survival and other endpoints in clinical trials of second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17(2):362-370.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Flaherty  KT, Hennig  M, Lee  SJ,  et al.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in metastatic melanoma: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):297-304.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lee  L, Wang  L, Crump  M.  Identification of potential surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials of aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: correlation of complete response, time-to-event and overall survival end points. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(6):1392-1403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hayashi  H, Okamoto  I, Taguri  M, Morita  S, Nakagawa  K.  Postprogression survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who receive second-line or third-line chemotherapy. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14(3):261-266.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Delea  TE, Khuu  A, Heng  DY, Haas  T, Soulières  D.  Association between treatment effects on disease progression end points and overall survival in clinical studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(7):1059-1068.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johnson  KR, Liauw  W, Lassere  MN.  Evaluating surrogacy metrics and investigating approval decisions of progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(3):485-496.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Foster  NR, Qi  Y, Shi  Q,  et al.  Tumor response and progression-free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: findings on the basis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials. Cancer. 2011;117(6):1262-1271.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hotta  K, Fujiwara  Y, Matsuo  K,  et al.  Time to progression as a surrogate marker for overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(3):311-317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group.  Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1995;311(7010):899-909.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aupérin  A, Le Péchoux  C, Rolland  E,  et al.  Meta-analysis of concomitant versus sequential radiochemotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2181-2190.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arriagada  R, Auperin  A, Burdett  S,  et al; NSCLC Meta-analyses Collaborative Group.  Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet. 2010;375(9722):1267-1277.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group.  Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(28):4617-4625.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mauguen  A, Le Péchoux  C, Saunders  MI,  et al.  Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in lung cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(22):2788-2797.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paoletti  X, Oba  K, Burzykowski  T,  et al; GASTRIC (Global Advanced/Adjuvant Stomach Tumor Research International Collaboration) Group.  Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(17):1729-1737.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Sargent  DJ, Grothey  A, Matheson  A, de Gramont  A.  Biomarkers and surrogate end points: the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(6):309-317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Booth  CM, Eisenhauer  EA.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1030-1033.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Booth  CM, Cescon  DW, Wang  L, Tannock  IF, Krzyzanowska  MK.  Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(33):5458-5464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kay  A, Higgins  J, Day  AG, Meyer  RM, Booth  CM.  Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1646-1651.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Cifu  A, Ioannidis  JP.  Reversals of established medical practices: evidence to abandon ship. JAMA. 2012;307(1):37-38.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Vandross  A, Toomey  C,  et al.  A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(8):790-798.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Afinitor for advanced breast cancer. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm312965.htm. Accessed January 4, 2014.
Piccart  M, Hortobagyi  GN, Campone  M,  et al.  Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(12):2357-2362.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Finn  RS, Crown  JP, Lang  I,  et al.  The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):25-35.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ning  YM, He  K, Dagher  R,  et al.  Liposomal doxorubicin in combination with bortezomib for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Oncology (Williston Park). 2007;21(12):1503-1508.
PubMed
Orlowski  RZ, Nagler  A, Sonneveld  P,  et al.  Final overall survival results of a randomized trial comparing bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib alone in subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;124(21):3448.
Ioannidis  JP.  Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281-286.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krzyzanowska  MK, Pintilie  M, Tannock  IF.  Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003;290(4):495-501.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Misakian  AL, Bero  LA.  Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA. 1998;280(3):250-253.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dickersin  K, Min  YI, Meinert  CL.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267(3):374-378.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dwan  K, Altman  DG, Arnaiz  JA,  et al.  Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rising  K, Bacchetti  P, Bero  L.  Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e217.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jefferson  T, Jones  M, Doshi  P, Spencer  EA, Onakpoya  I, Heneghan  CJ.  Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments. BMJ. 2014;348:g2545.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kirsch  I, Deacon  BJ, Huedo-Medina  TB, Scoboria  A, Moore  TJ, Johnson  BT.  Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(2):e45.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chapman  PB, Hauschild  A, Robert  C,  et al; BRIM-3 Study Group.  Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507-2516.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Raymond  E, Dahan  L, Raoul  J-L,  et al.  Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):501-513.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kantoff  PW, Higano  CS, Shore  ND,  et al; IMPACT Study Investigators.  Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(5):411-422.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baselga  J, Campone  M, Piccart  M,  et al.  Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(6):520-529.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burstein  HJ.  Bevacizumab for advanced breast cancer: all tied up with a RIBBON? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(10):1232-1235.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V.  Double-crossed: why crossover in clinical trials may be distorting medical science. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(5):625-627.
PubMed
Prasad  V, Grady  C.  The misguided ethics of crossover trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(2):167-169.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lakdawalla  DN, Chou  JW, Linthicum  MT, MacEwan  JP, Zhang  J, Goldman  DP.  Evaluating expected costs and benefits of granting access to new treatments on the basis of progression-free survival in non–small-cell lung cancer [published online March 19, 2015]. JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0203.
Fojo  T, Mailankody  S, Lo  A.  Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(12):1225-1236.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Hierarchy of Evidence for Surrogate End Point and Overall Survival Association
Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Distribution of Data Sources Used in the Evaluated Surrogacy End Point Trials
Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Correlations by Treatment Setting

We scored strength of trial-level correlation according to a modification to surrogate criteria proposed by the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care34: low correlation (r ≤ 0.7), medium strength correlation (r > 0.7 to r < 0.85), and high correlation (r ≥ 0.85).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Summary of Trial-Level Surrogate Meta-analyses Testing the Validity of Surrogate End Points in Oncology
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Included Meta-analyses of Both Published and Unpublished Reports

References

Svensson  S, Menkes  DB, Lexchin  J.  Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):611-612.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Vandross  A.  Cardiovascular primary prevention: how high should we set the bar? Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):656-659.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fleming  TR, DeMets  DL.  Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605-613.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Messerli  FH, Bangalore  S.  ALTITUDE trial and dual RAS blockade: the alluring but soft science of the surrogate end point. Am J Med. 2013;126(3):e1-e3.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yudkin  JS, Lipska  KJ, Montori  VM.  The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ciani  O, Buyse  M, Garside  R,  et al. Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study.http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f457. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Shi  Q, Sargent  DJ.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009;14(2):102-111.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fauber  JCE. FDA approves cancer drugs without proof they're extending lives.http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/fda-approves-cancer-drugs-without-proof-theyre-extending-lives-b99348000z1-280437692.html. Accessed December 14, 2014.
Korde  N, Zingone  A, Kwok  M,  et al Phase II clinical and correlative study of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. J Clin Oncol. 2012(suppl);abstr e18568.
Jakubowiak  AJ, Dytfeld  D, Griffith  KA,  et al.  A phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone as a frontline treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120(9):1801-1809.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Myeloma NgM [registration required].http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloma.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Tillman  K, Burton  B, Jacques  LB, Phurrough  SE.  Compendia and anticancer therapy under Medicare. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):348-350.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McGivney  WT.  Medicare recognizes NCCN compendium. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2008;6(7):635.
McGivney  WT.  NCCN guidelines and their impact on coverage policy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(6):625.
Miller  K, Wang  M, Gralow  J,  et al.  Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(26):2666-2676.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carpenter  D, Kesselheim  AS, Joffe  S.  Reputation and precedent in the bevacizumab decision. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(2):e3.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lassere  MN, Johnson  KR, Schiff  M, Rees  D.  Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the Biomarker-Surrogacy (BioSurrogate) Evaluation Schema (BSES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):27.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Torri  V, Simon  R, Russek-Cohen  E, Midthune  D, Friedman  M.  Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84(6):407-414.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Freedman  LS, Graubard  BI, Schatzkin  A.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167-178.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Molenberghs  G, Burzykowski  T, Renard  D, Geys  H.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2000;1(1):49-67.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weir  CJ, Walley  RJ.  Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006;25(2):183-203.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Elston  J, Taylor  RS.  Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):6-13.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Burzykowski  T, Michiels  S, Carroll  K.  Individual- and trial-level surrogacy in colorectal cancer. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(5):467-475.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prentice  RL.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):431-440.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sargent  DJ, Wieand  HS, Haller  DG,  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. 2005;23(34):8664-8670.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pratt  CM, Moyé  LA.  The cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial: casting suppression in a different light. Circulation. 1995;91(1):245-247.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Echt  DS, Liebson  PR, Mitchell  LB,  et al.  Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(12):781-788.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Laporte  S, Squifflet  P, Baroux  N,  et al.  Prediction of survival benefits from progression-free survival benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis of 2334 patients from 5 randomised trials. BMJ Open. 2013;3(3):e001802.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M.  Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006;5(3):173-186.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M.  Use of meta-analysis for the validation of surrogate endpoints and biomarkers in cancer trials. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):421-425.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sherrill  B, Kaye  JA, Sandin  R, Cappelleri  JC, Chen  C.  Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology. Onco Targets Ther. 2012;5:287-296.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davis  S, Tappenden  P, Cantrell  A. A review of studies examining the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced or metastatic cancer.http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/PFSOS%20Report.FINAL.06.08.12.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Ciani  O, Davis  S, Tappenden  P,  et al.  Validation of surrogate endpoints in advanced solid tumors: systematic review of statistical methods, results, and implications for policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):312-324.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care [Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen] (IQWiG). Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology: executive summary.http://www.iqwig.de/download/A10-05_Executive_Summary_v1-1_Surrogate_endpoints_in_oncology.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2014.
Cortazar  P, Zhang  L, Untch  M,  et al.  Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164-172.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berruti  A, Amoroso  V, Gallo  F,  et al.  Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-regression of 29 randomized prospective studies. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(34):3883-3891.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ng  R, Pond  GR, Tang  PA, MacIntosh  PW, Siu  LL, Chen  EX.  Correlation of changes between 2-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival in adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1966 to 2006. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):481-486.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M, Yothers  G, Sakamoto  J, Sargent  D.  Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer. Lifetime Data Anal. 2008;14(1):54-64.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Oba  K, Paoletti  X, Alberts  S,  et al; GASTRIC group.  Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(21):1600-1607.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Michiels  S, Le Maître  A, Buyse  M,  et al; MARCH and MACH-NC Collaborative Groups.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in locally advanced head and neck cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):341-350.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mauguen  A, Pignon  JP, Burdett  S,  et al; Surrogate Lung Project Collaborative Group.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients’ data. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):619-626.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bruzzi  P, Del Mastro  L, Sormani  MP,  et al.  Objective response to chemotherapy as a potential surrogate end point of survival in metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):5117-5125.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hackshaw  A, Knight  A, Barrett-Lee  P, Leonard  R.  Surrogate markers and survival in women receiving first-line combination anthracycline chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(11):1215-1221.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burzykowski  T, Buyse  M, Piccart-Gebhart  MJ,  et al.  Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):1987-1992.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Miksad  RA, Zietemann  V, Gothe  R,  et al.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(4):371-383.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sherrill  B, Amonkar  M, Wu  Y,  et al.  Relationship between effects on time-to-disease progression and overall survival in studies of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(10):1572-1578.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilkerson  J, Fojo  T.  Progression-free survival is simply a measure of a drug’s effect while administered and is not a surrogate for overall survival. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):379-385.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Beauchemin  C, Cooper  D, Lapierre  ME, Yelle  L, Lachaine  J.  Progression-free survival as a potential surrogate for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:1101-1110.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Petrelli  F, Barni  S.  Surrogate endpoints in metastatic breast cancer treated with targeted therapies: an analysis of the first-line phase III trials. Med Oncol. 2014;31(1):776.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johnson  KR, Ringland  C, Stokes  BJ,  et al.  Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(9):741-746.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chirila  C, Odom  D, Devercelli  G,  et al.  Meta-analysis of the association between progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(5):623-634.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sidhu  R, Rong  A, Dahlberg  S.  Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for survival in chemotherapy and targeted agent metastatic colorectal cancer trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):969-976.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Thirion  P, Carlson  RW, Burzykowski  T, Molenberghs  G, Piedbois  P; Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer.  Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2000;356(9227):373-378.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tang  PA, Bentzen  SM, Chen  EX, Siu  LL.  Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4562-4568.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Giessen  C, Laubender  RP, Ankerst  DP,  et al.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 50 randomized first-line trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(1):225-235.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shi  Q, de Gramont  A, Grothey  A,  et al.  Individual patient data analysis of progression-free survival versus overall survival as a first-line end point for metastatic colorectal cancer in modern randomized trials: findings from the analysis and research in cancers of the digestive system database. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):22-28.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Giessen  C, Laubender  RP, Ankerst  DP,  et al.  Surrogate end points in second-line treatment for mCRC: a systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(2):187-193.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Burzykowski  T, Carroll  K,  et al.  Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5218-5224.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Amir  E, Seruga  B, Kwong  R, Tannock  IF, Ocaña  A.  Poor correlation between progression-free and overall survival in modern clinical trials: are composite endpoints the answer? Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(3):385-388.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paoletti  X, Oba  K, Bang  YJ,  et al; GASTRIC group.  Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer trials: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(21):1667-1670.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shitara  K, Matsuo  K, Muro  K, Doi  T, Ohtsu  A.  Correlation between overall survival and other endpoints in clinical trials of second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17(2):362-370.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Flaherty  KT, Hennig  M, Lee  SJ,  et al.  Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in metastatic melanoma: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):297-304.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lee  L, Wang  L, Crump  M.  Identification of potential surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials of aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: correlation of complete response, time-to-event and overall survival end points. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(6):1392-1403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hayashi  H, Okamoto  I, Taguri  M, Morita  S, Nakagawa  K.  Postprogression survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who receive second-line or third-line chemotherapy. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14(3):261-266.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Delea  TE, Khuu  A, Heng  DY, Haas  T, Soulières  D.  Association between treatment effects on disease progression end points and overall survival in clinical studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(7):1059-1068.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johnson  KR, Liauw  W, Lassere  MN.  Evaluating surrogacy metrics and investigating approval decisions of progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(3):485-496.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Foster  NR, Qi  Y, Shi  Q,  et al.  Tumor response and progression-free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: findings on the basis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials. Cancer. 2011;117(6):1262-1271.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hotta  K, Fujiwara  Y, Matsuo  K,  et al.  Time to progression as a surrogate marker for overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(3):311-317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group.  Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1995;311(7010):899-909.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aupérin  A, Le Péchoux  C, Rolland  E,  et al.  Meta-analysis of concomitant versus sequential radiochemotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2181-2190.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arriagada  R, Auperin  A, Burdett  S,  et al; NSCLC Meta-analyses Collaborative Group.  Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet. 2010;375(9722):1267-1277.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group.  Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(28):4617-4625.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mauguen  A, Le Péchoux  C, Saunders  MI,  et al.  Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in lung cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(22):2788-2797.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paoletti  X, Oba  K, Burzykowski  T,  et al; GASTRIC (Global Advanced/Adjuvant Stomach Tumor Research International Collaboration) Group.  Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(17):1729-1737.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Buyse  M, Sargent  DJ, Grothey  A, Matheson  A, de Gramont  A.  Biomarkers and surrogate end points: the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(6):309-317.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Booth  CM, Eisenhauer  EA.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1030-1033.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Booth  CM, Cescon  DW, Wang  L, Tannock  IF, Krzyzanowska  MK.  Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(33):5458-5464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kay  A, Higgins  J, Day  AG, Meyer  RM, Booth  CM.  Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1646-1651.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Cifu  A, Ioannidis  JP.  Reversals of established medical practices: evidence to abandon ship. JAMA. 2012;307(1):37-38.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V, Vandross  A, Toomey  C,  et al.  A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(8):790-798.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Afinitor for advanced breast cancer. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm312965.htm. Accessed January 4, 2014.
Piccart  M, Hortobagyi  GN, Campone  M,  et al.  Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(12):2357-2362.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Finn  RS, Crown  JP, Lang  I,  et al.  The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):25-35.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ning  YM, He  K, Dagher  R,  et al.  Liposomal doxorubicin in combination with bortezomib for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Oncology (Williston Park). 2007;21(12):1503-1508.
PubMed
Orlowski  RZ, Nagler  A, Sonneveld  P,  et al.  Final overall survival results of a randomized trial comparing bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib alone in subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;124(21):3448.
Ioannidis  JP.  Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281-286.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krzyzanowska  MK, Pintilie  M, Tannock  IF.  Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003;290(4):495-501.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Misakian  AL, Bero  LA.  Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA. 1998;280(3):250-253.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dickersin  K, Min  YI, Meinert  CL.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267(3):374-378.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dwan  K, Altman  DG, Arnaiz  JA,  et al.  Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rising  K, Bacchetti  P, Bero  L.  Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e217.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jefferson  T, Jones  M, Doshi  P, Spencer  EA, Onakpoya  I, Heneghan  CJ.  Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments. BMJ. 2014;348:g2545.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kirsch  I, Deacon  BJ, Huedo-Medina  TB, Scoboria  A, Moore  TJ, Johnson  BT.  Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(2):e45.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chapman  PB, Hauschild  A, Robert  C,  et al; BRIM-3 Study Group.  Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507-2516.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Raymond  E, Dahan  L, Raoul  J-L,  et al.  Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(6):501-513.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kantoff  PW, Higano  CS, Shore  ND,  et al; IMPACT Study Investigators.  Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(5):411-422.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baselga  J, Campone  M, Piccart  M,  et al.  Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(6):520-529.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burstein  HJ.  Bevacizumab for advanced breast cancer: all tied up with a RIBBON? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(10):1232-1235.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Prasad  V.  Double-crossed: why crossover in clinical trials may be distorting medical science. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(5):625-627.
PubMed
Prasad  V, Grady  C.  The misguided ethics of crossover trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(2):167-169.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lakdawalla  DN, Chou  JW, Linthicum  MT, MacEwan  JP, Zhang  J, Goldman  DP.  Evaluating expected costs and benefits of granting access to new treatments on the basis of progression-free survival in non–small-cell lung cancer [published online March 19, 2015]. JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0203.
Fojo  T, Mailankody  S, Lo  A.  Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(12):1225-1236.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Supplement.

eTable. Setting and tumor type addressed by treatment level surrogate meta-analyses

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

4,226 Views
9 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs