Journal of Medical Screening > Volume 14, Number 4 > Pp. 178-185

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cuzick, J. Articles by Duffy, S. W Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original Articles

Surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials: general principles and an illustration using the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial

Jack Cuzick, Fay H Cafferty, Robert Edwards, Henrik Møller and Stephen W Duffy , Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics & Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics & Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics & Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; School of Medicine, Kings College London, Thames Cancer Registry, London, UK; Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics & Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Cancer screening is aimed primarily at reducing deaths. Thus, site-specific cancer mortality is the appropriate endpoint for evaluating screening interventions. However, it is also the most demanding endpoint, requiring follow-up and a large numbers of patients order to have adequate power. Therefore, it is highly desirable to have surrogate endpoints that can reliably predict mortality reductions many years earlier. We here review a range of surrogate markers in terms of their potential advantages and pitfalls, and argue that a measure which weights incident cancers according to their predicted mortality has many advantages over other measures and should be used more routinely. Application to the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial data suggests that predicted colorectal cancer mortality, based on stage-specific incidence, is a more powerful endpoint than actual mortality and could advance the analysis time by about three years. Total colorectal cancer incidence as a surrogate endpoint provides little advance in the analysis time over actual mortality. The approach requires reliable prognostic data, (e.g. stage), for both the study cohort and a representative sample of the whole population. The routine collection of such data should be a priority for cancer registries. Surrogate endpoints should not replace a long-term analysis based directly on mortality, but can provide reliable early indicators which can be useful both for monitoring ongoing screening programmes and for making policy decisions.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?