Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38697164›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Oncology2024

Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

Alexis B Webb, Christine D Berg, Philip E Castle, David Crosby, Ruth Etzioni, Larry G Kessler, Usha Menon, Mahesh Parmar, Robert J C Steele, Peter D Sasieni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Late-Stage Outcomes as Surrogates for Mortality in Cancer Screening Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Challenges in the future of cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Early detection of pancreatic cancer: Study design and analytical considerations in biomarker discovery and early phase validation studies.Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alexis B WebbCancer Research UK, London, UK.
Christine D BergEarly Cancer Detection Consultant, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Philip E CastleDivision of Cancer Prevention and Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
David CrosbyCancer Research UK, London, UK.
Ruth EtzioniPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Larry G KesslerDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health (HSPOP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Usha MenonMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Mahesh ParmarMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Robert J C SteeleUniversity of Dundee, Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
Peter D SasieniThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, King's College London, London, UK; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: p.sasieni@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

Modeling and analytics for cancer diagnostics: traversing the data-evidence divideR35CA274442 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI · 2022 to 2026
$4.9M
Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/01Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/02NCI NIH HHS R35 CA274442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationHumansResearch DesignBiomarkersBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID38697164
PMCPMC7616115

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.