Validation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials via principal stratification with an application to a prostate cancer trial

Adapting Health Technology Assessment agency standards for surrogate outcomes in early stage cancer trials: what needs to happen?

INTRODUCTION

An avalanche of early stage cancer clinical trials is coming. The majority of these solely use surrogate outcomes that have not been validated against a target outcome of interest (e.g. overall survival). Current HTA guidance on surrogate outcome validation are not methodologically or practically conducive to this scenario.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a high-level overview of methods, approaches, and conceptual thinking for making better use of limited evidence within early stage cancer HTA submissions. We outline regulatory and HTA issues and emphasize how evidence transitions from one to another, what major gaps currently exist, and how these may be bridged. We summarize current methodologies and practices, their pros and cons. We outline how complementary measurements strengthen evaluations and address fallacies and biases of conventional statistical methods for surrogate outcomes validation. The value of real-world data to support some of the necessary validity components is discussed. Lastly, we address the importance of the patient voice for better understanding which surrogate outcomes may appropriately inform HTA.

EXPERT OPINION

Conventional surrogate outcome validation represents a fraught and sub-optimal framework for HTA purposes, particularly for early stage cancer. Tools for optimizing use of limited evidence exist. Education of stakeholders is highly needed.

Surrogacy validation for time-to-event outcomes with illness-death frailty models

A common practice in clinical trials is to evaluate a treatment effect on an intermediate outcome when the true outcome of interest would be difficult or costly to measure. We consider how to validate intermediate outcomes in a causally-valid way when the trial outcomes are time-to-event. Using counterfactual outcomes, those that would be observed if the counterfactual treatment had been given, the causal association paradigm assesses the relationship of the treatment effect on the surrogate outcome with the treatment effect on the true, primary outcome. In particular, we propose illness-death models to accommodate the censored and semicompeting risk structure of survival data. The proposed causal version of these models involves estimable and counterfactual frailty terms. Via these multistate models, we characterize what a valid surrogate would look like using a causal effect predictiveness plot. We evaluate the estimation properties of a Bayesian method using Markov chain Monte Carlo and assess the sensitivity of our model assumptions. Our motivating data source is a localized prostate cancer clinical trial where the two survival outcomes are time to distant metastasis and time to death.

Five criteria for using a surrogate endpoint to predict treatment effect based on data from multiple previous trials

A surrogate endpoint in a randomized clinical trial is an endpoint that occurs after randomization and before the true, clinically meaningful, endpoint that yields conclusions about the effect of treatment on true endpoint. A surrogate endpoint can accelerate the evaluation of new treatments but at the risk of misleading conclusions. Therefore, criteria are needed for deciding whether to use a surrogate endpoint in a new trial. For the meta-analytic setting of multiple previous trials, each with the same pair of surrogate and true endpoints, this article formulates 5 criteria for using a surrogate endpoint in a new trial to predict the effect of treatment on the true endpoint in the new trial. The first 2 criteria, which are easily computed from a zero-intercept linear random effects model, involve statistical considerations: an acceptable sample size multiplier and an acceptable prediction separation score. The remaining 3 criteria involve clinical and biological considerations: similarity of biological mechanisms of treatments between the new trial and previous trials, similarity of secondary treatments following the surrogate endpoint between the new trial and previous trials, and a negligible risk of harmful side effects arising after the observation of the surrogate endpoint in the new trial. These 5 criteria constitute an appropriately high bar for using a surrogate endpoint to make a definitive treatment recommendation.