Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, Vol 5, Issue 12 947-953, Copyright © 1996 by American Association for Cancer Research

EDITORIALS

Surrogate end points in cancer research: a critique

A Schatzkin, LS Freedman, J Dorgan, LM McShane, MH Schiffman and SM Dawsey

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Puntoni, S. Zanardi, D. Branchi, S. Bruno, A. Curotto, M. Varaldo, P. Bruzzi, and A. Decensi Prognostic Effect of DNA Aneuploidy from Bladder Washings in Superficial Bladder Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2007; 16(5): 979 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. E Gabriel, J. W Crott, H. Ghandour, G. E Dallal, S.-W. Choi, M. K Keyes, H. Jang, Z. Liu, M. Nadeau, A. Johnston, et al. Chronic cigarette smoking is associated with diminished folate status, altered folate form distribution, and increased genetic damage in the buccal mucosa of healthy adults. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2006; 83(4): 835 - 841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. T. Mao, M. C. Fishbein, B. Adams, M. D. Roth, L. Goodglick, L. Hong, M. Burdick, E. R. M. Strieter, C. Holmes, D. P. Tashkin, et al. Celecoxib Decreases Ki-67 Proliferative Index in Active Smokers Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2006; 12(1): 314 - 320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Decensi, R. Torrisi, S. Bruno, M. Costantini, A. Curotto, G. Nicolò, B. Malcangi, L. Baglietto, G. P. Bruttini, B. Gatteschi, et al. Randomized Trial of Fenretinide in Superficial Bladder Cancer Using DNA Flow Cytometry as an Intermediate End Point Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2000; 9(10): 1071 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. A. Moore, H. Tsuda, S. Tamano, A. Hagiwara, K. Imaida, T. Shirai, and N. Ito Commentary: Marriage of a Medium-Term Liver Model to Surrogate Markers--A Practical Approach for Risk and Benefit Assessment Toxicol Pathol, March 1, 1999; 27(2): 237 - 242. [Abstract] [PDF]