Cited by 51Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsLung Cancer Research StudiesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Developing biomarker-specific end points in lung cancer clinical trials

Neal, Joel W., Gainor, Justin F., Shaw, Alice T.·2015·Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract

In cancer-drug development, a number of different end points have been used to establish efficacy and support regulatory approval, such as overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic response rate. However, these traditional end points have important limitations. For example, in lung cancer clinical trials, evaluating overall survival end points is a protracted process and these end points are most reliable when crossover to the investigational therapy is not permitted. Furthermore, although radiographic surrogate end points, such as PFS and response rate, generally correlate with clinical benefit in the setting of cytotoxic chemotherapy and molecular targeted therapies, novel immunotherapies might have atypical response kinetics, which confounds radiographic interpretation. In this Review, we discuss the need to develop alternative or surrogate end points for lung cancer clinical trials, and focus on several new biomarkers that could serve as surrogate end points, including functional imaging biomarkers, circulating factors (tumour proteins, DNA, and cells), and pharmacodynamic tumour markers. By enabling the size, duration, and complexity of cancer trials to be reduced, biomarker end points hold the promise to accelerate drug development and improve patient outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.222

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 128 · Cited by 51

Authors
Neal, J. W., Gainor, J. F., & Shaw, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Shaw, Alice T.
Venue
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-12-23
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
135-146
ISSN
  • 1759-4774 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4782
OpenAlex
W2045363444
Cited by
51
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
lung cancer, clinical trial endpoints, surrogate endpoints, overall survival, progression-free survival, circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, drug development
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Biomarkers, Treatment Outcome, Endpoint Determination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review