Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review demonstrates validity of intermediate clinical endpoints for predicting overall survival in prostate cancer, suggesting their potential use in clinical trials.
In the past, selection of intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) in prostate cancer (PCa) trials largely depended on qualitative assessments; however, the advancing quality of research necessitates a robust correlation with overall survival (OS). This review summarises the results from several high-quality meta-analyses that explored the validity of ICEs as surrogates for OS. We found strong evidence that metastasis-free survival can serve as an ICE in localized PCa. In advanced disease, valid ICEs were identified only within the context of metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, including radiological and clinical progression-free survival; however, concerns remain regarding their use owing to the limited generalisability of the data used to validate their surrogacy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Intermediate clinical endpoints can reduce the costs of trials and allow earlier introduction of new treatment methods. This article summarises results from studies verifying the validity of these endpoints as surrogates for overall survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miszczyk et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: