Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer

Paul Schellhammer, Abraham Cockett, Laurent Boccon-Gibod, Mary Gospodarowicz, Arnon Krongrad, Ian Murchie Thompson, Peter Scardino, Mark Soloway, Jan Adolfsson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. The AUA Practice Guidelines Panel convened to address the issue of appropriate endpoints for assessment of treatment modalities for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Methods. A review of the literature and the design of existing clinical trials produced a consensus, which was presented to and critiqued by the members of the general conference. Results. The pitfalls associated with identification of local failure endpoints were discussed, and the more accurate endpoints of freedom from metastatic progression and overall survival were recognized. The strict definition that must be fulfilled for intermediate endpoints to become surrogates for metastasis free and/or survival endpoints was stressed. For more efficient and rapid conduct of future clinical trials, the urgent need to validate such surrogate endpoints by evaluation in randomized control trials is obvious. PSA, while an indicator of disease activity and a critical marker for estimating disease progression or regression in response to therapy, is not a surrogate for metastasis free or overall survival. Conclusion. Until surrogate endpoints are validated, the committee has evaluated the endpoints in current use, reviewed their limitations, and stressed the importance of quality-of-life assessment together with the traditional endpoint assessment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-38
Number of pages12
JournalUrology
Volume49
Issue number4 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Biomarkers
Clinical Trials
Neoplasm Metastasis
Practice Guidelines
Disease Progression
Prostate
Quality of Life
Carcinoma
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Schellhammer, P., Cockett, A., Boccon-Gibod, L., Gospodarowicz, M., Krongrad, A., Thompson, I. M., ... Adolfsson, J. (1997). Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer. Urology, 49(4 SUPPL.), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5

Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer. / Schellhammer, Paul; Cockett, Abraham; Boccon-Gibod, Laurent; Gospodarowicz, Mary; Krongrad, Arnon; Thompson, Ian Murchie; Scardino, Peter; Soloway, Mark; Adolfsson, Jan.

In: Urology, Vol. 49, No. 4 SUPPL., 01.04.1997, p. 27-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schellhammer, P, Cockett, A, Boccon-Gibod, L, Gospodarowicz, M, Krongrad, A, Thompson, IM, Scardino, P, Soloway, M & Adolfsson, J 1997, 'Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer', Urology, vol. 49, no. 4 SUPPL., pp. 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5
Schellhammer P, Cockett A, Boccon-Gibod L, Gospodarowicz M, Krongrad A, Thompson IM et al. Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer. Urology. 1997 Apr 1;49(4 SUPPL.):27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5
Schellhammer, Paul ; Cockett, Abraham ; Boccon-Gibod, Laurent ; Gospodarowicz, Mary ; Krongrad, Arnon ; Thompson, Ian Murchie ; Scardino, Peter ; Soloway, Mark ; Adolfsson, Jan. / Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer. In: Urology. 1997 ; Vol. 49, No. 4 SUPPL. pp. 27-38.
@article{86e37d056d49452ab43059ee4460ae5b,
title = "Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer",
abstract = "Objectives. The AUA Practice Guidelines Panel convened to address the issue of appropriate endpoints for assessment of treatment modalities for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Methods. A review of the literature and the design of existing clinical trials produced a consensus, which was presented to and critiqued by the members of the general conference. Results. The pitfalls associated with identification of local failure endpoints were discussed, and the more accurate endpoints of freedom from metastatic progression and overall survival were recognized. The strict definition that must be fulfilled for intermediate endpoints to become surrogates for metastasis free and/or survival endpoints was stressed. For more efficient and rapid conduct of future clinical trials, the urgent need to validate such surrogate endpoints by evaluation in randomized control trials is obvious. PSA, while an indicator of disease activity and a critical marker for estimating disease progression or regression in response to therapy, is not a surrogate for metastasis free or overall survival. Conclusion. Until surrogate endpoints are validated, the committee has evaluated the endpoints in current use, reviewed their limitations, and stressed the importance of quality-of-life assessment together with the traditional endpoint assessment.",
author = "Paul Schellhammer and Abraham Cockett and Laurent Boccon-Gibod and Mary Gospodarowicz and Arnon Krongrad and Thompson, {Ian Murchie} and Peter Scardino and Mark Soloway and Jan Adolfsson",
year = "1997",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "27--38",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer

AU - Schellhammer, Paul

AU - Cockett, Abraham

AU - Boccon-Gibod, Laurent

AU - Gospodarowicz, Mary

AU - Krongrad, Arnon

AU - Thompson, Ian Murchie

AU - Scardino, Peter

AU - Soloway, Mark

AU - Adolfsson, Jan

PY - 1997/4/1

Y1 - 1997/4/1

N2 - Objectives. The AUA Practice Guidelines Panel convened to address the issue of appropriate endpoints for assessment of treatment modalities for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Methods. A review of the literature and the design of existing clinical trials produced a consensus, which was presented to and critiqued by the members of the general conference. Results. The pitfalls associated with identification of local failure endpoints were discussed, and the more accurate endpoints of freedom from metastatic progression and overall survival were recognized. The strict definition that must be fulfilled for intermediate endpoints to become surrogates for metastasis free and/or survival endpoints was stressed. For more efficient and rapid conduct of future clinical trials, the urgent need to validate such surrogate endpoints by evaluation in randomized control trials is obvious. PSA, while an indicator of disease activity and a critical marker for estimating disease progression or regression in response to therapy, is not a surrogate for metastasis free or overall survival. Conclusion. Until surrogate endpoints are validated, the committee has evaluated the endpoints in current use, reviewed their limitations, and stressed the importance of quality-of-life assessment together with the traditional endpoint assessment.

AB - Objectives. The AUA Practice Guidelines Panel convened to address the issue of appropriate endpoints for assessment of treatment modalities for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Methods. A review of the literature and the design of existing clinical trials produced a consensus, which was presented to and critiqued by the members of the general conference. Results. The pitfalls associated with identification of local failure endpoints were discussed, and the more accurate endpoints of freedom from metastatic progression and overall survival were recognized. The strict definition that must be fulfilled for intermediate endpoints to become surrogates for metastasis free and/or survival endpoints was stressed. For more efficient and rapid conduct of future clinical trials, the urgent need to validate such surrogate endpoints by evaluation in randomized control trials is obvious. PSA, while an indicator of disease activity and a critical marker for estimating disease progression or regression in response to therapy, is not a surrogate for metastasis free or overall survival. Conclusion. Until surrogate endpoints are validated, the committee has evaluated the endpoints in current use, reviewed their limitations, and stressed the importance of quality-of-life assessment together with the traditional endpoint assessment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030905231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030905231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5

DO - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80321-5

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 27

EP - 38

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 4 SUPPL.

ER -