title: The risky reliance on small surrogate endpoint studies when planning a large prevention trial.
abstract: The definitive evaluation of treatment to prevent a chronic disease with low incidence in middle age, such as cancer or cardiovascular disease, requires a trial with a large sample size of perhaps 20,000 or more. To help decide whether to implement a large true endpoint trial, investigators first typically estimate the effect of treatment on a surrogate endpoint in a trial with a greatly reduced sample size of perhaps 200 subjects. If investigators reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect in the surrogate endpoint trial they implicitly assume they would likely correctly reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect for the true endpoint. Surrogate endpoint trials are generally designed with adequate power to detect an effect of treatment on surrogate endpoint. However, we show that a small surrogate endpoint trial is more likely than a large surrogate endpoint trial to give a misleading conclusion about the beneficial effect of treatment on true endpoint, which can lead to a faulty (and costly) decision about implementing a large true endpoint prevention trial. If a small surrogate endpoint trial rejects the null hypothesis of no treatment effect, an intermediate-sized surrogate endpoint trial could be a useful next step in the decision-making process for launching a large true endpoint prevention trial.
authors.affiliation: National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
authors.forename: Stuart G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Baker
authors.forename: Barnett S
authors.initials: BS
authors.lastname: Kramer
keywords: Cancer prevention; Cardiovascular disease; Prentice criterion; Principal stratification; Sample size calculation; Surrogate endpoint
references.citation: Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):431-40
references.pmid: 2727467
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Jan 30;25(2):183-203
references.pmid: 16252272
references.citation: JAMA. 1999 Aug 25;282(8):786-90
references.pmid: 10463718
references.citation: Biometrics. 2012 Mar;68(1):248-57
references.pmid: 21838732
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 2008 Jun;17(3):303-40
references.pmid: 17925313
references.citation: Lancet. 2010 May 8;375(9726):1624-33
references.pmid: 20430429
references.citation: J Chronic Dis. 1968 Jan;21(1):13-24
references.pmid: 5646357
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11890317
references.citation: Stat Med. 1994 Nov 15;13(21):2269-78
references.pmid: 7846425
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2010 Sep;139(3):797-805, 805.e1
references.pmid: 20538001
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 1;10(19):6502-11
references.pmid: 15475437
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1994 Apr 14;330(15):1029-35
references.pmid: 8127329
references.citation: Biometrics. 1998 Sep;54(3):1014-29
references.pmid: 9840970
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2011;7(1):25
references.pmid: 21686085