Chul Kim1, Vinay Prasad2. 1. Medical Oncology Service, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology/Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Electronic address: prasad@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation for cancer drug approvals based on a surrogate. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database, with focused searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Among cancer drugs approved based on a surrogate end point, we examined previous publications assessing the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation. Specifically, we identified the percentage of surrogate approvals lacking any formal analysis of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation, and when conducted, the strength of such correlations. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, the FDA approved marketing applications for 55 indications based on a surrogate, of which 25 were accelerated approvals and 30 were traditional approvals. We could not find any formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 out of 25 accelerated approvals (56%) and 11 out of 30 traditional approvals (37%). For accelerated approvals, just 4 approvals (16%) were made where a level 1 analysis (the most robust way to validate a surrogate) had been performed, with all 4 studies reporting low correlation (r≤0.7). For traditional approvals, a level 1 analysis had been performed for 15 approvals (50%): 8 (53%) reported low correlation (r≤0.7), 4 (27%) medium correlation (r>0.7 to r<0.85), and 3 (20%) high correlation (r≥0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS: The use of surrogate end points for drug approval often lacks formal empirical verification of the strength of the surrogate-survival association.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation for cancer drug approvals based on a surrogate. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database, with focused searches of MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Among cancer drugs approved based on a surrogate end point, we examined previous publications assessing the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation. Specifically, we identified the percentage of surrogate approvals lacking any formal analysis of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation, and when conducted, the strength of such correlations. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, the FDA approved marketing applications for 55 indications based on a surrogate, of which 25 were accelerated approvals and 30 were traditional approvals. We could not find any formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 out of 25 accelerated approvals (56%) and 11 out of 30 traditional approvals (37%). For accelerated approvals, just 4 approvals (16%) were made where a level 1 analysis (the most robust way to validate a surrogate) had been performed, with all 4 studies reporting low correlation (r≤0.7). For traditional approvals, a level 1 analysis had been performed for 15 approvals (50%): 8 (53%) reported low correlation (r≤0.7), 4 (27%) medium correlation (r>0.7 to r<0.85), and 3 (20%) high correlation (r≥0.85) with survival. CONCLUSIONS: The use of surrogate end points for drug approval often lacks formal empirical verification of the strength of the surrogate-survival association.
Authors: Bruno Kovic; Xuejing Jin; Sean Alexander Kennedy; Mathieu Hylands; Michal Pedziwiatr; Akira Kuriyama; Huda Gomaa; Yung Lee; Morihiro Katsura; Masafumi Tada; Brian Y Hong; Sung Min Cho; Patrick Jiho Hong; Ashley M Yu; Yasmin Sivji; Augustin Toma; Li Xie; Ludwig Tsoi; Marcin Waligora; Manya Prasad; Neera Bhatnagar; Lehana Thabane; Michael Brundage; Gordon Guyatt; Feng Xie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Vanessa Boudewyns; Brian G Southwell; Jessica T DeFrank; Kate Ferriola-Bruckenstein; Michael T Halpern; Amie C O'Donoghue; Helen W Sullivan Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-03-20
Authors: Jeremy M O'Connor; Kristen L Fessele; Jean Steiner; Kathi Seidl-Rathkopf; Kenneth R Carson; Nathan C Nussbaum; Emily S Yin; Kerin B Adelson; Carolyn J Presley; Anne C Chiang; Joseph S Ross; Amy P Abernethy; Cary P Gross Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Neon Brooks; Mario Campone; Silvia Paddock; Scott Shortenhaus; David Grainger; Jacqueline Zummo; Samuel Thomas; Rose Li Journal: Drugs Context Date: 2017-11-15