Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Issue title: Selected Papers from the 2nd Haifa Cancer Prevention Workshop, 4–6 May 2006
Guest editors: D.E. Brennerx and G. Rennerty
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Freedman, Laurence; *
Affiliations: Bar Ilan University and Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Israel | [x] University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0930, USA | [y] CHS National Cancer Control Center, Department of Community Medicine and Epidemiology, Carmel Medical Center and B. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion Haifa, Israel
Correspondence: [*] Present address: Biostatistics Unit, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer 52161, Israel. Tel.: +972 3 5305390; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: Even the most common malignancies have a low probability of occurrence over a restricted time interval. Therefore controlled intervention studies that use incident cancer as an outcome must be large, lengthy and, hence, costly. Studies with surrogate outcomes – biomarkers of pre-clinical carcinogenesis – are attractive because they are potentially smaller, shorter, and less expensive than their counterparts with cancer outcomes. Despite their potential, however, surrogate outcomes require validation to ensure that they provide sufficient quality of evidence on intervention effects. We review methods that have been proposed over the past 15 years for such validation. The two main approaches are those based on the Prentice criterion, which require data from a single study, and those based on meta-analysis, which require data from many studies. The former approach has fallen out of favor, for reasons to be explained. The latter approach is more popular, but so demanding of resources that it may prove impractical for cancer chemoprevention in all but a few instances. Researchers may have to resign themselves to more limited use of surrogate outcomes, not as replacements for traditional outcomes, but as outcomes for Phase II studies designed to decide which interventions to pass for Phase III testing.
Keywords: Intermediate endpoints, meta-analysis, Phase II chemoprevention studies, Phase III chemoprevention studies, Prentice's criterion, surrogate outcomes, surrogate endpoints
DOI: 10.3233/CBM-2007-3304
Journal: Cancer Biomarkers, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 135-140, 2007
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]