| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Review |
Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 [G. J. K., K. M. J., C. W. B., P. G., J. A. C., E. T. H.], and CCS Associates, Mountain View, California, 94043 [C. C. S., L. A. D.]
This paper proposes a scientific basis and possible strategy for applying surrogate end points in chemopreventive drug development. The potential surrogate end points for cancer incidence described are both phenotypic (at the tissue, cellular, and molecular levels) and genotypic biomarkers. To establish chemopreventive efficacy in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, it is expected that in most cases it will be critical to ensure that virtually all of the biomarker lesions are prevented or that the lesions prevented are those with the potential to progress. This would require that both the phenotype and genotype of the target tissue in agent-treated subjects, especially in any new or remaining precancers, are equivalent to or show less progression than those of placebo-treated subjects. In the National Cancer Institute chemoprevention program, histological modulation of a precancer (intraepithelial neoplasia) has thus far been the primary phenotypic surrogate end point in chemoprevention trials. Additionally, we give high priority to biomarkers measuring specific and general genotypic changes correlating to the carcinogenesis progression model for the targeted cancer (e.g., progressive genomic instability as measured by loss of heterozygosity or amplification at a specific microsatellite loci). Other potential surrogate end points that may occur earlier in carcinogenesis are being analyzed in these precancers and in nearby normal appearing tissues. These biomarkers include proliferation and differentiation indices, specific gene and general chromosome damage, cell growth regulatory molecules, and biochemical activities (e.g., enzyme inhibition). Serum biomarkers also may be monitored (e.g., prostate-specific antigen) because of their accessibility. Potentially chemopreventive drug effects of the test agent also may be measured (e.g., tissue and serum estrogen levels in studies of steroid aromatase inhibitors). These initial studies are expected to expand the list of validated surrogate end points for future use. Continued discussion and research among the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, industry, and academia are needed to ensure that surrogate end point-based chemoprevention indications are feasible.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Zagorowicz and J. Jankowski Molecular changes in the progression of Barrett's oesophagus Postgrad. Med. J., August 1, 2007; 83(982): 529 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. V. Nesterova, N. Johnson, C. Cheadle, S. E. Bates, S. Mani, C. A. Stratakis, I. Kahn, R. K. Gupta, and Y. S. Cho-Chung Autoantibody cancer biomarker: extracellular protein kinase a. Cancer Res., September 15, 2006; 66(18): 8971 - 8974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. J. Kelloff, S. M. Lippman, A. J. Dannenberg, C. C. Sigman, H. L. Pearce, B. J. Reid, E. Szabo, V. C. Jordan, M. R. Spitz, G. B. Mills, et al. Progress in Chemoprevention Drug Development: The Promise of Molecular Biomarkers for Prevention of Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cancer--A Plan to Move Forward Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2006; 12(12): 3661 - 3697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Q. J. Khan, B. F. Kimler, J. Clark, T. Metheny, C. M. Zalles, and C. J. Fabian Ki-67 Expression in Benign Breast Ductal Cells Obtained by Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspiration Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2005; 14(4): 786 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Jass, G. J. Kelloff, and R. L. Schilsky Limitations of the Adenoma-Carcinoma Sequence in Colorectum Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2004; 10(17): 5969 - 5970. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Kelloff, R. C. Bast Jr., D. S. Coffey, A. V. D'Amico, R. S. Kerbel, J. W. Park, R. W. Ruddon, G. J. S. Rustin, R. L. Schilsky, C. C. Sigman, et al. Biomarkers, Surrogate End Points, and the Acceleration of Drug Development for Cancer Prevention and Treatment: An Update Prologue Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2004; 10(11): 3881 - 3884. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Kelloff, R. L. Schilsky, D. S. Alberts, R. W. Day, K. Z. Guyton, H. L. Pearce, J. C. Peck, R. Phillips, and C. C. Sigman Colorectal Adenomas: A Prototype for the Use of Surrogate End Points in the Development of Cancer Prevention Drugs Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2004; 10(11): 3908 - 3918. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. T. McManus, A. Olaru, and S. J. Meltzer Biomarkers of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett's Esophagus Cancer Res., March 1, 2004; 64(5): 1561 - 1569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Ley, A. Mohar, J. Guarner, R. Herrera-Goepfert, L. S. Figueroa, D. Halperin, I. Johnstone, and J. Parsonnet Helicobacter pylori Eradication and Gastric Preneoplastic Conditions: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2004; 13(1): 4 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. B. Armstrong, T. H. Taylor, and F. L. Meyskens Jr. Point: Surrogate End Point Biomarkers Are Likely To Be Limited in Their Usefulness in the Development of Cancer Chemoprevention Agents against Sporadic Cancers Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2003; 12(7): 589 - 592. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Kelloff, J. A. O'Shaughnessy, G. B. Gordon, E. T. Hawk, and C. C. Sigman Counterpoint: Because Some Surrogate End Point Biomarkers Measure the Neoplastic Process They Will Have High Utility in the Development of Cancer Chemopreventive Agents against Sporadic Cancers Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2003; 12(7): 593 - 596. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Metz and D. S. Alberts Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention in the United States: The Road Ahead Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2003; 12(2): 81 - 83. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Greenwald Science, medicine, and the future: Cancer chemoprevention BMJ, March 23, 2002; 324(7339): 714 - 718. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. O'Shaughnessy, G. J. Kelloff, G. B. Gordon, A. J. Dannenberg, W. K. Hong, C. J. Fabian, C. C. Sigman, M. M. Bertagnolli, S. P. Stratton, S. Lam, et al. Treatment and Prevention of Intraepithelial Neoplasia: An Important Target for Accelerated New Agent Development : Recommendations of the American Association for Cancer Research Task Force on the Treatment and Prevention of Intraepithelial Neoplasia Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2002; 8(2): 314 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Parton, M. Dowsett, and I. Smith Studies of apoptosis in breast cancer BMJ, June 23, 2001; 322(7301): 1528 - 1532. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Lawrence, P. C. Adamson, R. Caruso, C. Chow, D. Kleiner, R. F. Murphy, D. J. Venzon, M. Shovlin, M. Noone, M. Merino, et al. Phase I Clinical Trial of Alitretinoin and Tamoxifen in Breast Cancer Patients: Toxicity, Pharmacokinetic, and Biomarker Evaluations J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2001; 19(10): 2754 - 2763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
