Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42496449›Full record

ReviewHematology reports2026

Surrogate Endpoints in CLL: From Promise and Pitfalls to a Context-Specific Validation Framework.

Stefano Molica

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hematology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Stefano MolicaDepartment Haematology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull-York Medical School, Cottingham HU16 5JQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2795-6507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to accelerate treatment evaluation, but their validity is context-dependent. This review examines key endpoints-progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), measurable residual disease (MRD), and quality of life (QoL)/patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PFS, while standard, is limited by competing risks and poor reflection of toxicity and patient experience. TTNT captures both efficacy and tolerability but is influenced by external factors. MRD is a strong predictor of outcomes in fixed-duration venetoclax-based regimens but less reliable in continuous therapies. QoL and PROs provide essential patient-centered insight often missed by traditional endpoints. We propose a practical framework in which endpoint selection depends on treatment type, patient characteristics, and intended use. MRD is most informative after fixed-duration therapy, TTNT in continuous treatment, and PROs in vulnerable populations. Overall, surrogate endpoints in CLL require setting-specific validation to ensure they reflect meaningful clinical benefit.

Indexed as

CLLMRDQoLsurrogate endpointsTTNT

Identifiers

PMID42496449
PMCPMC13398243

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.