An alternative method to validate surrogate endpoints in oncology

Surrogate endpoints are often utilized to support drug efficacy claims. Hence, it is of paramount importance to validate the effectiveness of surrogate endpoints in correctly predicting clinical benefit, in order to ensure a fast and safe access to new drugs. This study aimed to explore the applicability of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and its Area Under Curve (AUC) for trial-level surrogate validation, and to compare the predictive power of surrogate threshold effects (STE) derived from AUC versus linear regression for survival benefits. Based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer, we extracted the treatment effect data on surrogate endpoints (objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS)) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects on OS were dichotomized as statistically significant improvement and others. The ROC curve and its AUC were obtained by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of OS status at each surrogate treatment effect cutoff value. As a contrast, the linear regression was modeled to derive the determination coefficients ($$\:{R}^{2}$$) between OS and surrogates. STEs were estimated using AUC and linear regression, respectively, and their performance in correctly predicting OS benefit status was analyzed and compared. A total of 87 trials were collected. Both approaches showed that PFS had better quality than ORR ($$\:{R}^{2}$$: 0.45(95% CI, 0.30–0.61) vs. 0.21(95% CI, 0.1–0.36); AUC: 0.84(95% CI, 0.75–0.93) vs. 0.71(95% CI, 0.59–0.83)). The AUC-based STE performed substantially better in predicting significant OS benefit than the linear regression-based STE for both ORR (sensitivity: 81.3% vs. 0%; accuracy: 62.2% vs. 54.1%) and PFS (sensitivity: 88.9% vs. 41.2%; accuracy: 79.5% vs. 71.8%). The ROC curve and its AUC are built on a binary indicator of the statistical significance of final-outcome treatment effect, thereby improving the accuracy of predicting true efficacy superiority. This approach demonstrates a potential in evaluating the ability of a surrogate endpoint to predict final-outcome benefits.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2026-03-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02846-9
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An alternative method to validate surrogate endpoints in oncology

Ting Yu, Xingyue Zhu, Die Xiao
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

An alternative method to validate surrogate endpoints in oncology

Ting Yu, Xingyue Zhu, Die Xiao
article en

Abstract

Surrogate endpoints are often utilized to support drug efficacy claims. Hence, it is of paramount importance to validate the effectiveness of surrogate endpoints in correctly predicting clinical benefit, in order to ensure a fast and safe access to new drugs. This study aimed to explore the applicability of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and its Area Under Curve (AUC) for trial-level surrogate validation, and to compare the predictive power of surrogate threshold effects (STE) derived from AUC versus linear regression for survival benefits. Based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer, we extracted the treatment effect data on surrogate endpoints (objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS)) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects on OS were dichotomized as statistically significant improvement and others. The ROC curve and its AUC were obtained by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of OS status at each surrogate treatment effect cutoff value. As a contrast, the linear regression was modeled to derive the determination coefficients ($$\:{R}^{2}$$) between OS and surrogates. STEs were estimated using AUC and linear regression, respectively, and their performance in correctly predicting OS benefit status was analyzed and compared. A total of 87 trials were collected. Both approaches showed that PFS had better quality than ORR ($$\:{R}^{2}$$: 0.45(95% CI, 0.30–0.61) vs. 0.21(95% CI, 0.1–0.36); AUC: 0.84(95% CI, 0.75–0.93) vs. 0.71(95% CI, 0.59–0.83)). The AUC-based STE performed substantially better in predicting significant OS benefit than the linear regression-based STE for both ORR (sensitivity: 81.3% vs. 0%; accuracy: 62.2% vs. 54.1%) and PFS (sensitivity: 88.9% vs. 41.2%; accuracy: 79.5% vs. 71.8%). The ROC curve and its AUC are built on a binary indicator of the statistical significance of final-outcome treatment effect, thereby improving the accuracy of predicting true efficacy superiority. This approach demonstrates a potential in evaluating the ability of a surrogate endpoint to predict final-outcome benefits.

BMC Medical Research Methodology
Guiyang Medical University (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.