UK Stakeholder Perspectives on Surrogate Endpoints in Cancer, and the Potential for UK Real-World Datasets to Validate Their Use in Decision-Making

References

• Quaresma M, Coleman MP, Rachet B. 40-year trends in an index of survival for all cancers combined and survival adjusted for age and sex for each cancer in England and Wales, 1971–2011: a population-based study. Lancet. 2015;385(9974):1206–1218. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61396-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado A, Guddati AK. Clinical endpoints in oncology - a primer. Am J Cancer Res. 2021;11(4):1121–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boshuizen J, Peeper DS. Rational Cancer Treatment Combinations: an Urgent Clinical Need. Mol Cell. 2020;78(6):1002–1018. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2020.05.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He J, Morales DR, Guthrie B. Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review. Trials. 2020;21(1):228. doi:10.1186/s13063-020-4139-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Capobianco E. High-dimensional role of AI and machine learning in cancer research. Br J Cancer. 2022;126(4):523–532. doi:10.1038/s41416-021-01689-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strzebonska K, Waligora M. Umbrella and basket trials in oncology: ethical challenges. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):58. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0395-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Paggio JC, Berry JS, Hopman WM, et al. Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(5):728–734. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafrin J, Brookmeyer R, Peneva D, et al. The value of surrogate endpoints for predicting real-world survival across five cancer types. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(4):731–739. doi:10.1185/03007995.2016.1140027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etekal T, Koehn K, Sborov DW, et al. Time-to-event surrogate end-points in multiple myeloma randomised trials from 2005 to 2019: a surrogacy analysis. Br J Haematol. 2023;200(5):587–594. doi:10.1111/bjh.18568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawoud D, Naci H, Ciani O, Bujkiewicz S. Raising the bar for using surrogate endpoints in drug regulation and health technology assessment. BMJ. 2021;374:n2191. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2191
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ciani O, Grigore B, Blommestein H, et al. Validity of surrogate endpoints and their impact on coverage recommendations: a retrospective analysis across international health technology assessment agencies. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(4):439–452. doi:10.1177/0272989X21994553
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. IQWiG Reports – commission No. A10-05. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology; 2011. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/download/a10-05_executive_summary_v1-1_surrogate_endpoints_in_oncology.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(4):368–377. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce CS, Brhlikova P, Heath J, McGettigan P. The use of validated and nonvalidated surrogate endpoints in two European Medicines Agency expedited approval pathways: a cross-sectional study of products authorised 2011–2018. PLOS Med. 2019;16(9):e1002873. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002873
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies; 2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/appendix-2-guideline-evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-man_en.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• FDA. PDUFA reauthorization performance goals and procedures fiscal years 2018 through 2022; 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/99140/download. Accessed May 3, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Consultation document: MHRA draft guidance on randomised controlled trials generating real-world evidence to support regulatory decisions. GOV.UK; 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/mhra-draft-guidance-on-randomised-controlled-trials-generating-real-world-evidence-to-support-regulatory-decisions/consultation-document-mhra-draft-guidance-on-randomised-controlled-trials-generating-real-world-evidence-to-support-regulatory-decisions. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Chen EY, Joshi SK, Tran A, Prasad V. Estimation of study time reduction using surrogate end points rather than overall survival in oncology clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):642–647. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijnen S, Lipska I, Alves TL, et al. Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(9):1768–1775. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure; 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-approval-or-licensure. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Satherley A, Chang E, Awasthy S, Michel S. Understanding payer sensitivities when considering the use of surrogate endpoints to substantiate clinical value propositions: country differences between England, Germany, and the U.S. In: The Evidence Forum. Spring.Vol. 2017; 2017. Available from: https://www.evidera.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Surrogate-Endpoints-Used-in-Health-Technology-Assessments.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Kordecka A, Walkiewicz-żarek E, Łapa J, Sadowska E, Kordecki M. Selection of endpoints in clinical trials: trends in European marketing authorization practice in oncological indications. Value Health. 2019;22(8):884–890. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency. Guidance: innovative licensing and access pathway. GOV.UK; 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium. March 2022 decisions news release. Scottish Medicines Consortium; 2022. Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/about-us/latest-update/march-2022-decisions-news-release/. Accessed March 20, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Grigore B, Ciani O, Dams F, et al. Surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment: an international review of methodological guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1055–1070. doi:10.1007/s40273-020-00935-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to review the role of surrogate end points in health policy: state of the art and the way forward. Value Health. 2017;20(3):487–495. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Brentuximab vedotin for treating CD30-positive Hodgkin lymphoma; 2018. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta524/chapter/1-Recommendations. Accessed February 20, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan-Canadian oncology drug review. Pertuzumab (Perjeta) NBC – final recommendation; 2015. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr_pertuzumab_perjeta_nbc_fn_rec.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzello E, Leopaldi C, Massó B, et al. Acceptance of progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) by EU5 and Canadian health authorities for cancer drug reimbursement. Value Health. 2022;25(1 (suppl)):S184(abstrPOSC258). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. Process and methods [PMG36]. Natl Inst Health Care Excell. 2022;2022:181.
   Google Scholar
• NICE. Osimertinib for adjuvant treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after complete tumour resection. Technology appraisal guidance [TA761]; 2022. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta761/chapter/3-Committee-discussion. Accessed June 2, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• NICE. Daratumumab in combination for untreated multiple myeloma when a stem cell transplant is suitable. Technology appraisal guidance [TA763]; 2022. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta763/chapter/3-Committee-discussion. Accessed June 2, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Bouvy J How ‘surrogate outcomes’ influence long-term health outcomes | blogs | news. NICE; 2023. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/blog/how-surrogate-outcomes-influence-long-term-health-outcomes. Accessed February 20, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper K, Tappenden P, Cantrell A, Ennis K. A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer. Br J Cancer. 2020;123(11):1686–1696. doi:10.1038/s41416-020-01050-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasalic D, McGinnis GJ, Fuller CD, et al. Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumor clinical trials. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990. 2020;136:176–185. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.06.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQVIA Institute. Evolving oncology endpoints; 2021. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/evolving-oncology-endpoints. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• EUnetHTA. Endpoints used in relative effectiveness assessment: surrogate endpoints; 2015. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Endpoints-used-in-Relative-Effectiveness-Assessment-Surrogate-Endpoints_Amended-JA1-Guideline_Final-Nov-2015.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Hashim M, Pfeiffer BM, Bartsch R, Postma M, Heeg B. Do surrogate endpoints better correlate with overall survival in studies that did not allow for crossover or reported balanced postprogression treatments? An application in advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Value Health. 2018;21(1):9–17. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer NA, Hall M, Christian JB. Modernizing regulatory evidence with trials and real-world studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(5):1112–1115. doi:10.1007/s43441-020-00131-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoCasale RJ, Pashos CL, Gutierrez B, et al. Bridging the gap between RCTs and RWE through endpoint selection. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021;55(1):90–96. doi:10.1007/s43441-020-00193-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu F, Panagiotakos D. Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):287. doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01768-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaksa A, Wu J, Jónsson P, Eichler HG, Vititoe S, Gatto NM. Organized structure of real-world evidence best practices: moving from fragmented recommendations to comprehensive guidance. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10(9):711–731. doi:10.2217/cer-2020-0228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Symons J, Agapow P, et al. Best practices in the real-world data life cycle. PLOS Digit Health. 2022;1(1):e0000003. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liaw ST, Guo JGN, Ansari S, et al. Quality assessment of real-world data repositories across the data life cycle: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2021;28(7):1591–1599. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friends of Cancer Research. Considerations for use of real-world evidence in oncology: a friends of cancer research white paper; 2020. Available from: https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Use_of_Real-World_Evidence_in_Oncology_0.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Horvat P, Gray CM, Lambova A, et al. Comparing findings from a friends of cancer research exploratory analysis of real-world end points with the cancer analysis system in England. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021;5:1155–1168. doi:10.1200/CCI.21.00013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith SD, Tucker M, Bowser B, et al. Generating real-world tumor burden endpoints from electronic health record data: comparison of RECIST, radiology-anchored, and clinician-anchored approaches for abstracting real-world progression in non-small cell lung cancer. Adv Ther. 2019;36(8):2122–2136. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-00970-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MHRA. MHRA guideline on randomised controlled trials using real-world data to support regulatory decisions. GOV.UK. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mhra-guidance-on-The-use-of-real-world-data-in-clinical-studies-to-support-regulatory-decisions/mhra-guideline-on-randomised-controlled-trials-using-real-world-data-to-support-regulatory-decisions. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• NICE. Real-world evidence framework feedback. NICE. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/real-world-evidence-framework-feedback. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Health and Social Care, Health and Care Research Wales, NHS Research Scotland, NHS Health Research Authority. Does my project require review by a Research Ethics Committee? Available from: https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/docs/Algorithm%20-%20Does%20my%20project%20require%20REC%20review%20v2.0%2020200304.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. National cancer patient experience survey: 2019 survey results. 2019 survey results; 2020. Available from: https://www.ncpes.co.uk/2019-survey-results/. Accessed May 3, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Mohyuddin GR, Koehn K, Abdallah AO, et al. Use of endpoints in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials over the last 15 years: a systematic review. Am J Hematol. 2021;96(6):690–697. doi:10.1002/ajh.26166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamel JF, Saulnier P, Pe M, et al. A systematic review of the quality of statistical methods employed for analysing quality of life data in cancer randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990. 2017;83:166–176. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam A, Herrera-Perez D, Gill J, Prasad V. Patient experience captured by quality-of-life measurement in oncology clinical trials. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(3):e200363. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Fang F, Sjölander A, Fall K, Adami HO, Valdimarsdóttir U. First-onset mental disorders after cancer diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(8):1964–1969. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friends of Cancer Research. Establishing a framework to evaluate real-world endpoints; 2018. Available from: https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/RWE_FINAL-7.6.18_1.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart M, Norden AD, Dreyer N, et al. An exploratory analysis of real-world end points for assessing outcomes among immunotherapy-treated patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019. doi:10.1200/CCI.18.00155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atrash S, Thompson-Leduc P, Tai MH, et al. Treatment patterns and effectiveness of patients with multiple myeloma initiating Daratumumab across different lines of therapy: a real-world chart review study. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):1207. doi:10.1186/s12885-021-08881-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akizuki K, Matsuoka H, Toyama T, et al. Real-world data on clinical features, outcomes, and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma from Miyazaki prefecture, Japan. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):105. doi:10.3390/jcm10010105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chari A, Parikh K, Ni Q, Abouzaid S. Treatment patterns and clinical and economic outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing regimens without stem cell transplant in a real-world setting. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19(10):645–655. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2019.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Parikh K, Abouzaid S, et al. Real-world treatment patterns, time to next treatment, and economic outcomes in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients treated with pomalidomide or carfilzomib. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(2):236–246. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remes K, Anttila P, Silvennoinen R, et al. Real-world treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: multicenter registry results from Finland 2009–2013. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice MS, Naeger S, Singh E. Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes among multiple myeloma patients with asthma and COPD in the United States. Oncol Ther. 2021;9(1):195–212. doi:10.1007/s40487-021-00146-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szabo AG, Klausen TW, Levring MB, et al. The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258487. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiteni F, Westeel V, Bonnetain F. Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in lung cancer trials: a review. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2017;17(5):447–454. doi:10.1080/14737140.2017.1316196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avet-Loiseau H, Ludwig H, Landgren O, et al. Minimal Residual Disease Status as a Surrogate Endpoint for Progression-free Survival in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Studies: a Meta-analysis. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(1):e30–e37. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kothari S, Hillengass J, McCarthy PL, Holstein SA. Determination of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: does it matter? Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2019;14(1):39–46. doi:10.1007/s11899-019-0497-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen K, Zhao H, Shi Y, et al. Perioperative Dynamic Changes in Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients with Lung Cancer (DYNAMIC). Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(23):7058–7067. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki K, Nishiwaki K, Gunji T, Katori M, Masuoka H, Yano S. Elevated eosinophil level predicted long time to next treatment in relapsed or refractory myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide. Cancer Med. 2020;9(5):1694–1702. doi:10.1002/cam4.2828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provencio M, Serna-Blasco R, Franco F, et al. Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to identify patients with epidermal growth factor receptor–positive non-small cell lung cancer who might benefit from sequential tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2021;149:61–72. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.02.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charalampous C, Kourelis T. Minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma patients: minimal disease with maximal implications. Front Oncol. 2022;11. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.801851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbosh C, Birkbak NJ, Swanton C. Early stage NSCLC - challenges to implementing ctDNA-based screening and MRD detection. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(9):577–586. doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0058-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Y, Mei W, Ma K, Zeng C. Circulating tumor DNA and Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) in solid tumors: current horizons and future perspectives. Front Oncol. 2021;11:763790. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.763790
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogure Y, Handa H, Ito Y, et al. ctDNA improves prognostic prediction for patients with relapsed/refractory MM receiving ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Blood. 2024;143(23):2401–2413. doi: 10.1182/blood.2023022540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman SD, Hills RK, Virgo P, et al. Measurable residual disease at induction redefines partial response in acute myeloid leukemia and stratifies outcomes in patients at standard risk without NPM1 mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15):1486–1497. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.3425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell N, Freeman S, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, et al. S135 A single versus fractionated schedule of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in combination with daunorubicin / ARA-C as induction therapy in older patients with aml: results from the UK NCRI AML18 trial. In: EHA25 Virtual Abstract Book. HemaSphere. Vol. 4; 2020:19. doi10.1097/HS9.0000000000000404
   Google Scholar
• Grimwade D, Jovanovic JV, Hills RK, et al. Prospective minimal residual disease monitoring to predict relapse of acute promyelocytic leukemia and to direct pre-emptive arsenic trioxide therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(22):3650–3658. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.20.1533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith G, Apperley J, Milojkovic D, et al. A British Society for Haematology Guideline on the diagnosis and management of chronic myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2020;191(2):171–193. doi:10.1111/bjh.16971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schievink B, Lambers Heerspink H, Leufkens H, De Zeeuw D, Hoekman J. The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108722. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar