Literature DB >> 8959315

Surrogate end points in cancer research: a critique.

A Schatzkin, L S Freedman, J Dorgan, L M McShane, M H Schiffman, S M Dawsey.   

Abstract

Studies using surrogate end points of malignant disease may be smaller, shorter, and less expensive than studies with incident cancer end points. Researchers have proposed a broad range of histological, cellular, and molecular markers as surrogate end points for cancer (SECs). We define a valid SEC as follows: the effect of an intervention on (or the association of a risk factor with) the SEC is concordant with its effect on (or association with) incident cancer. Adenomatous polyps and persistent human papillomavirus infections are examples of reasonably valid SECs (for colorectal and cervical cancer, respectively) because these markers are necessary precursors of most of these malignancies. Inferences from other potential SECs, however, are problematic if there exist major alternative causal pathways to malignancy bypassing the SEC. Furthermore, in such circumstances, an SEC that is valid for one intervention or exposure may not be valid for another. Even for those end points without such major alternative pathways, an intervention could differentially affect two intermediate markers on the same pathway, thus disturbing the concordance between its effect on a given SEC and its effect on cancer. Thus, an understanding of the causal structure underlying the relations of interventions/exposures, potential SECs, and cancer is critical in evaluating SECs. Three questions are pertinent to elucidating this structure: (a) What is the relation of the SEC to cancer? (b) What is the relation of the intervention/exposure to the SEC? and (c) To what extent doses the SEC mediate the relation between the intervention/exposure and cancer? Ecological, metabolic, observational epidemiological, and intervention studies may provide data relevant to one or more of these questions. Data on SEC variability are critical in evaluating whether marker findings have been attenuated by random sources of intra-individual variation. We emphasize the importance of conducting studies, especially SEC-cancer and intervention/exposure-SEC-cancer mediation studies, to evaluate problematic SECs such as epithelial cell hyperproliferation. For some time to come, hard and policy-relevant evidence on cancer etiology and prevention will emerge only from studies with cancer end points or, at a somewhat lower level of certainty, SECs that are (for the most part) obligatory steps on the causal pathway to malignant disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8959315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  9 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers as surrogates for cancer development.

Authors:  E Hawk; J L Viner; J A Lawrence
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Early Life Exposures and Adult Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Corinne E Joshu
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 3.  Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Welty; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.309

4.  Epidemiologic Evidence That Excess Body Weight Increases Risk of Cervical Cancer by Decreased Detection of Precancer.

Authors:  Megan A Clarke; Barbara Fetterman; Li C Cheung; Nicolas Wentzensen; Julia C Gage; Hormuzd A Katki; Brian Befano; Maria Demarco; John Schussler; Walter K Kinney; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Thomas S Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Phase III trial of selenium to prevent prostate cancer in men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: SWOG S9917.

Authors:  James R Marshall; Catherine M Tangen; Wael A Sakr; David P Wood; Donna L Berry; Eric A Klein; Scott M Lippman; Howard L Parnes; David S Alberts; David F Jarrard; W Robert Lee; J Michael Gaziano; E David Crawford; Benjamin Ely; Michael Ray; Warren Davis; Lori M Minasian; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2011-09-06

6.  Impact of improved classification on the association of human papillomavirus with cervical precancer.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicolas Wentzensen; Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Intermediacy and gene-environment interaction: the example of CHRNA5-A3 region, smoking, nicotine dependence, and lung cancer.

Authors:  Sholom Wacholder; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Neil Caporaso
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Dietary terpenoids and prostate cancer chemoprevention.

Authors:  Thangaiyan Rabi; Sanjay Gupta
Journal:  Front Biosci       Date:  2008-05-01

Review 9.  Prevention of colorectal cancer: diet, chemoprevention, and lifestyle.

Authors:  James R Marshall
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.806

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.