Problems with Using Biomarkers as Surrogate End Points for Cancer: A Cautionary Tale
Investigations employing surrogate cancer end points are especially attractive because they may be smaller, shorter, and cheaper than comparable studies with explicit cancer outcomes. For many potential surrogate end points—epithelial cell proliferation will be taken as an example—inferences are problematic because of the existence of alternative causal pathways to cancer that bypass the surrogate end point. Evaluating potential surrogates requires information on the following three questions: (1) What is the relation of the surrogate end point to cancer? (2) What is the relation of the intervention (or exposure) to the surrogate? (3) To what extent does the surrogate end point mediate the relation between intervention (exposure) and cancer? Data for these questions may derive from animal experiments, human metabolic studies, observational epidemiologic investigations (including ecologic studies), and randomized trials. Inferences to cancer from such downstream markers as colorectal adenomatous polyps and persistent human papillomavirus infection of the cervix are strong, though not absolutely unassailable. For all but these very-close-to-cancer markers, considerable caution is warranted in extrapolating from surrogate effects or associations to cancer.
KeywordsBreast Cancer Risk Human Papilloma Virus Mammographic Density Colorectal Adenoma Advanced Adenoma
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Hamajima N, Hirose K, Tajima K, Rohan T, Calle EE, Heath CW Jr, et al (2002) Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer—collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease. Br J Cancer 87:1234–1245PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.New drug, antibiotic and biological drug product regulations: accelerated approval (1992) Proposed Rule. 57: Federal Register 13234–13232Google Scholar
- 8.Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 9.Schiffman MH, Schatzkin A (1994) Test reliability is critically important to molecular epidemiology: an example from studies of human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia. Cancer Res 54: S1944–S1947Google Scholar