Can a Marker Be a Surrogate for Development of Cancer, and Would We Know It if It Exists?

  • William B. Armstrong
  • Thomas H. Taylor
  • Frank L. Meyskens
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 166)


Carcinogenesis proceeds through a very long preclinical period. Our collective hope is that multiple opportunities exist for chemoprevention to arrest or reverse progression towards malignancy. In the hope of faster progress with fewer subjects and lower total cost, much effort is being expended on the search for reliable biomarkers to predict the likelihood of developing cancer and/or to signal the effectiveness of chemopreventive therapy. Considerable attention is paid to identifying those markers that can act as surrogate markers for cancer development, since favorable modulation of the surrogate end point biomarker (SEBM) may demonstrate effectiveness of a putative preventive treatment. However, the complexity of the biology challenges our ability to measure the effectiveness of attempts to arrest or reverse carcinogenesis, other than through costly and time-consuming prospective trials with disease state as the endpoint. Despite much work, to date no prehistologic biological or molecular intermediate marker has been validated for sporadic cancers. Several factors accounting for the difficulties encountered in SEBM development are reviewed. Discussion is focused on the common thread of the complexity of the underlying biological changes in carcinogenesis limiting the effectiveness of any single biomarker. Additionally, the incidence of sporadic cancers is also low, further limiting the positive predictive value of any putative prognostic marker. Recent successes in development of chemopreventive agents show the concept is valid and worth pursuing, but the current strategies to develop biochemical and genetic markers to identify surrogate biomarkers is flawed, and need to be reassessed in light of the difficulties faced over the last 20 years.


Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Clinical Endpoint Intraepithelial Neoplasia Chronic Granulomatous Disease Chemopreventive Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    [No authors listed] (1975) Clofibrate and niacin in coronary heart disease. JAMA 231:360–381Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    [No authors listed] (1979) Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. JAMA 242:2562–2567Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    [No authors listed] (1991) A controlled trial of interferon gamma to prevent infection in chronic granulomatous disease. The International Chronic Granulomatous Disease Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 324: 509–516Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    [No authors listed] (1991) Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA 265:3255–3264Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    [No authors listed] (1992) Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II Investigators. N Engl J Med 327:227–233Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    [No authors listed] (1994) The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 330:1029–1035Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    [No authors listed] (1994) Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 344:1383–1389Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    [No authors listed] (1997) Food and Drug Modernization Act. Title 21Code of Federal Regulations Part 314 Subpart H Sections 314.500-314.520Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    [No authors listed] (2000) Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA level and CD4 count as prognostic markers and surrogate end points: a meta-analysis. HIV Surrogate Marker Collaborative Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 16:1123–1133Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    [No authors listed] (2001) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89–95Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    [No authors listed] (2002) MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360:7–22Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Armstrong WB, Taylor TH, Meyskens FL Jr (2003) Point: Surrogate end point biomarkers are likely to be limited in their usefulness in the development of cancer chemoprevention agents against sporadic cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:589–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Califano J, van der Riet P, Westra W, et al (1996) Genetic progression model for head and neck cancer: Implications for field cancerization. Cancer Res 56:2488–2492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coplen SE, Antman EM, Berlin JA, et al (1990) Efficacy and safety of quinidine therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Circulation 82: 1106–1116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al (1991) Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med 324:781–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edwards AL (1967) Statistical methods. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleming TR, DeMets DL (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 125:605–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilbert PB, DeGruttola V, Hammer SM, et al (2001) Virologic and regimen termination surrogate end points in AIDS clinical trials. JAMA 285:777–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon DJ (1994) Cholesterol lowering and total mortality. In: Rifkind BM (ed) Contemporary issues in cholesterol lowering: clinical and population aspects. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hahn WC, Counter CM, Lundberg AS, et al (1999) Creation of human tumour cells with defined genetic elements [see comments]. Nature 400: 464–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Held PH, Yusuf S, Furberg CD (1989) Calcium channel blockers in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina: an overview. BMJ 299: 1187–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrington DM, Howard TD (2003) From presumed benefit to potential harm—hormone therapy and heart disease. N Engl J Med 349: 519–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hine LK, Laird N, Hewitt P, et al (1989) Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 149:2694–2698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Azen SP, et al (2003) Hormone therapy and the progression of coronary-artery atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 349:535–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kannel WB, Castelli WP, Gordon T (1979) Cholesterol in the prediction of atherosclerotic disease. New perspectives based on the Framingham study. Ann Intern Med 90:85–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kelloff GJ, Malone WF, Boone CW, et al (1990) Progress in applied chemoprevention research. Semin Oncol 17:438–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kelloff GJ, O’shaughnessy JA, Gordon GB, et al (2003) Counterpoint: because some surrogate end point biomarkers measure the neoplastic process they will have high utility in the development of cancer chemopreventive agents against sporadic cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:593–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelloff GJ, Sigman CC, Johnson KM, et al (2000) Perspectives on surrogate end points in the development of drugs that reduce the risk of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:127–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lederman HM, Williams PL, Wu JW, et al (2003) Incomplete immune reconstitution after initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with severe CD4+ cell depletion. J Infect Dis 188:1794–1803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lippman SM, Hong WK (2002) Cancer prevention by delay. Commentary re: JA O’shaughnessy et al. Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 8:314–346, 2002. Clin Cancer Res 8:305-346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al (2003) Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 349:523–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matsuhashi N, Nakajima A, Shinohara K, et al (1998) Rectal cancer after sulindac therapy for a sporadic adenomatous colonic polyp. Am J Gastroenterol 93:2261–2266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al (1996) Risk factors for lung cancer and for intervention effects in CARET, the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 1550–1559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’shaughnessy JA, Kelloff GJ, Gordon GB, et al (2002) Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 8:314–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Packer M, Carver JR, Rodeheffer RJ, et al (1991) Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure. The PROMISE Study Research Group. N Engl J Med 325:1468–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Packer M, Rouleau J, Swedberg K, et al (1993) Effect of flosequinan on survival in chronic heart failure: preliminary results of the PROFILE study (abstract). Circulation 88 Suppl 1):IGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prentice RL (1989) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 8:431–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Riggs BL, Hodgson SF, O’Fallon WM, et al (1990) Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 322:802–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sande MA, Carpenter CC, Cobbs CG, et al (1993) Antiretroviral therapy for adult HIV-infected patients. Recommendations from a state-of-the-art conference. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases State-of-the-Art Panel on Anti-Retroviral Therapy for Adult HIV-Infected Patients. JAMA 270:2583–2589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schatzkin AGail M (2002) The promise and peril of surrogate end points in cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer 2:19–27Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Siscovick DS, Raghunathan TE, Psaty BM, et al (1994) Diuretic therapy for hypertension and the risk of primary cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 330:1852–1857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Takala J, Ruokonen E, Webster NR, et al (1999) Increased mortality associated with growth hormone treatment in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med 341:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Temple R (1999) Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 282:790–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, et al (2003) The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tonelli F, Valanzano R, Messerini L, et al (2000) Long-term treatment with sulindac in familial adenomatous polyposis: is there an actual efficacy in prevention of rectal cancer? J Surg Oncol 74:15–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • William B. Armstrong
    • 1
  • Thomas H. Taylor
    • 2
  • Frank L. Meyskens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations