The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused?
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Surrogate outcomes are not intrinsically beneficial to patients, but are designed to be easier and faster to measure than clinically meaningful outcomes. The use of surrogates as an endpoint in clinical trials and basis for regulatory approval is common, and frequently exceeds the guidance given by regulatory bodies. DISCUSSION: In this article, we demonstrate that the use of surrogates in oncology is widespread and increasing. At the same time, the strength of association between the surrogates used and clinically meaningful outcomes is often unknown or weak. Attempts to validate surrogates are rarely undertaken. When this is done, validation relies on only a fraction of available data, and often concludes that the surrogate is poor. Post-marketing studies, designed to ensure drugs have meaningful benefits, are often not performed. Alternatively, if a drug fails to improve quality of life or overall survival, market authorization is rarely revoked. We suggest this reliance on surrogates, and the imprecision surrounding their acceptable use, means that numerous drugs are now approved based on small yet statistically significant increases in surrogates of questionable reliability. In turn, this means the benefits of many approved drugs are uncertain. This is an unacceptable situation for patients and professionals, as prior experience has shown that such uncertainty can be associated with significant harm. CONCLUSION: The use of surrogate outcomes should be limited to situations where a surrogate has demonstrated robust ability to predict meaningful benefits, or where cases are dire, rare or with few treatment options. In both cases, surrogates must be used only when continuing studies examining hard endpoints have been fully recruited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortazar, P., Zhang, L., Untch, M., Mehta, K., Costantino, J. P., Wolmark, N., Bonnefoi, H., Cameron, D., Gianni, L., Valagussa, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8 · Cited by 4,742
Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer
Verma, S., Miles, D., Gianni, L., Krop, I. E., Welslau, M., Baselga, J., Pegram, M., Oh, D.-Y., Diéras, V., Guardino, E., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1209124 · Cited by 3,834
Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer
Miller, K., Wang, M., Gralow, J., Dickler, M., Cobleigh, M., Perez, E. A., Shenkier, T., Cella, D., & Davidson, N. E. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa072113 · Cited by 3,081
Everolimus in Postmenopausal Hormone-Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer
Baselga, J., Campone, M., Piccart, M., Burris, H. A., Rugo, H. S., Sahmoud, T., Noguchi, S., Gnant, M., Pritchard, K. I., Lebrun, F., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1109653 · Cited by 2,863
iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics
Seymour, L., Bogaerts, J., Perrone, A., Ford, R., Schwartz, L. H., Mandrekar, S., Lin, N. U., Litière, S., Dancey, J., Chen, A., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30074-8 · Cited by 2,472
Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
von Minckwitz, G., Procter, M., de Azambuja, E., Zardavas, D., Benyunes, M., Viale, G., Suter, T., Arahmani, A., Rouchet, N., Clark, E., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1703643 · Cited by 1,411
Swain, S. M., Kim, S.-B., Cortés, J., Ro, J., Semiglazov, V., Campone, M., Ciruelos, E., Ferrero, J.-M., Schneeweiss, A., Knott, A., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70130-x · Cited by 1,006
Sargent, D. J., Wieand, H. S., Haller, D. G., Gray, R., Benedetti, J. K., Buyse, M., Labianca, R., Seitz, J. F., O'Callaghan, C. J., Francini, G., et al. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.01.6071 · Cited by 713 · cited 1×
“9, suggesting that DFS was a faithful predictor for OS effects [6].”
BackgroundThe validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments
Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., & Geys, H. (2000) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49 · Cited by 624
Piccart, M., Hortobagyi, G. N., Campone, M., Pritchard, K. I., Lebrun, F., Ito, Y., Noguchi, S., Perez, A., Rugo, H. S., Deleu, I., et al. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu456 · Cited by 574
Cited by
Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval
Gyawali, B., Hey, S. P., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2019) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462 · Cited by 300
Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?
Liu, K. Y., & Howard, R. (2021) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-021-00557-x · Cited by 104
Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research
Tang, M., Pearson, S.-A., Simes, R. J., & Chua, B. H. (2023) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol30020143 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Kemp, R., & Prasad, V.
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2017-07-21
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 134-134
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2733307304
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12916-017-0902-9
- The paper
- Kemp, R., & Prasad, V. (2017). Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0902-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
