© 1990 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, No. 22, 1746-1752,
November 21, 1990
© 1990 Oxford University Press
Validation of Intermediate End Points in Cancer Research
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control National Cancer Institute Bethesda, Md
Division of Cancer Etiology, National Cancer Institute Bethesda, Md
*Correspondence to: Arthur Schatzkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Executive Plaza North, Room 211, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Investigations using intermediate end points as cancer surrogates are quicker, smaller, and less expensive than studies that use malignancy as the end point. We present a strategy for determining whether a given biomarker is a valid intermediate end point between an exposure and incidence of cancer. Candidate intermediate end points may be selected from case series, ecologic studies, and animal experiments. Prospective cohort and sometimes case-control studies may be used to quantify the intermediate end point-cancer association. The most appropriate measure of this association is the attributable proportion. The intermediate end point is a valid cancer surrogate if the attributable proportion is close to 1.0, but not if it is close to 0. Usually, the attributable proportion is close to neither 1.0 nor 0; in this case, valid surrogacy requires that the intermediate end point mediate an established exposure-cancer relation. This would in turn imply that the exposure effect would vanish if adjusted for the intermediate end point. We discuss the relative advantages of intervention and observational studies for the validation of intermediate end points. This validation strategy also may be applied to intermediate end points for adverse reproductive outcomes and chronic diseases other than cancer. [J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1746–1752, 1990]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. N Lassere The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints Statistical Methods in Medical Research, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 303 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. H.L. Goulart, J. W. Clark, H. H. Pien, T. G. Roberts, S. N. Finkelstein, and B. A. Chabner Trends in the Use and Role of Biomarkers in Phase I Oncology Trials Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 13(22): 6719 - 6726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Groopman Validation Strategies for Biomarkers: Old and New Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 1, 2005; 2005(1): 81 - 84. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Wacholder Chapter 18: Statistical Issues in the Design and Analysis of Studies of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Neoplasia J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, June 1, 2003; 2003(31): 125 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. H. Schiffman and P. Castle Epidemiologic Studies of a Necessary Causal Risk Factor: Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Neoplasia J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): E2 - E2. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. F. Anderson, K. Z. Guyton, R. A. Hiatt, S. W. Vernon, B. Levin, and E. Hawk Colorectal Cancer Screening for Persons at Average Risk J Natl Cancer Inst, August 7, 2002; 94(15): 1126 - 1133. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Kim, D. M. Shin, A. El-Naggar, J. S. Lee, C. Corrales, S. M. Lippman, W. K. Hong, and W. N. Hittelman Chromosome Polysomy and Histological Characteristics in Oral Premalignant Lesions Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2001; 10(4): 319 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. P. Hemstreet III, S. Yin, Z. Ma, R. B. Bonner, W. Bi, J. Y. Rao, M. Zang, Q. Zheng, B. Bane, N. Asal, et al. Biomarker Risk Assessment and Bladder Cancer Detection in a Cohort Exposed to Benzidine J Natl Cancer Inst, March 21, 2001; 93(6): 427 - 436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Weissfeld Cyclin D1 and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Risk: How Good Does a Marker Have to Be? J Natl Cancer Inst, August 16, 2000; 92(16): 1282 - 1283. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Herrero, A. Hildesheim, C. Bratti, M. E. Sherman, M. Hutchinson, J. Morales, I. Balmaceda, M. D. Greenberg, M. Alfaro, R. D. Burk, et al. Population-Based Study of Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Neoplasia in Rural Costa Rica J Natl Cancer Inst, March 15, 2000; 92(6): 464 - 474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Bonassi, L. Hagmar, U. Strömberg, A. H. Montagud, H. Tinnerberg, A. Forni, P. Heikkilä, S. Wanders, P. Wilhardt, I.-L. Hansteen, et al. Chromosomal Aberrations in Lymphocytes Predict Human Cancer Independently of Exposure to Carcinogens Cancer Res., March 1, 2000; 60(6): 1619 - 1625. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Rao, S. K. Apple, Y. Jin, S. Lin, R. K. Nieberg, and S. L. Hirtschowitz Comparative Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis of c-myc Amplificationon Archival Breast Fine-Needle Aspiration Materials Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2000; 9(2): 175 - 179. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. S. Kim, S. Kacew, and B. M. Lee In vitro chemopreventive effects of plant polysaccharides (Aloe barbadensis Miller, Lentinus edodes, Ganoderma lucidum and Coriolus versicolor) Carcinogenesis, August 1, 1999; 20(8): 1637 - 1640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|