Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 3:S0168-8278(25)02251-2.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2025.05.020. Online ahead of print.

Association of candidate surrogate endpoints with overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer

Collaborators, Affiliations

Association of candidate surrogate endpoints with overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer

Florian Castet et al. J Hepatol. .

Abstract

Background & aims: Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used in biliary tract cancer (BTC) trials. While this may expedite drug approval and decrease costs, surrogate endpoints may not always correlate with an overall survival (OS) advantage. We aimed to explore the association of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) with OS at the trial- and patient-level.

Methods: For the trial-level analysis, we performed a systematic review of Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings for phase II-III trials in advanced BTC. We used a weighted linear regression to measure the correlation of OS with PFS, ORR and DCR. For the patient-level analysis, we analyzed patients included in five randomized trials and three real-world datasets. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023398279.

Results: For the trial-level analysis, we included 41 studies, involving 88 treatment arms and 7,817 patients. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.86) for PFS, 0.01 (0-0.08) for ORR and 0.39 (0.14-0.64) for DCR. Predefined subgroup analysis showed consistent results. For the patient-level analysis, we included a total of 2,506 patients, 783 in randomized trials (first-line 512, second-line 271) and 1,723 in routine clinical care (first-line chemotherapy 773, first-line chemotherapy-durvalumab 628, second-line chemotherapy 322). Across the distinct datasets, the correlation coefficient ranged from 0.73 to 0.86 for PFS. A responder analysis found no association between response and survival.

Conclusion: PFS shows a moderate correlation with OS both at the trial- and patient-level, while ORR and DCR show a low correlation. Whilst PFS is currently the best candidate surrogate marker for OS, our results highlight the need for novel endpoints in this field.

Impact and implications: The use of validated surrogate endpoints in biliary tract cancer trials may decrease costs and improve study feasibility, particularly with agents that only target small subsets of patients or in trials that incorporate a crossover design. A formal statistical validation of surrogacy requires patient-level and trial-level data. This is the first comprehensive analysis to incorporate novel agents (including immunotherapies and targeted agents), include patient-level data and rigorously and homogeneously extract appropriate measures of treatment effect for endpoint correlation. These results show a moderate correlation for progression-free survival both at the trial- and patient-level and a low correlation for disease control rate and response rate. This information will aid clinicians in appropriately interpreting contemporary clinical trials and guide clinical researchers and trial sponsors involved in clinical trial design. Furthermore, it has important implications for the regulatory approval process and may aid agencies in appropriately evaluating novel drugs.

Keywords: Biliary tract cancer; Cholangiocarcinoma; Meta-analysis; Overall survival; Surrogate endpoints; Trial design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest F Castet: Received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, Servier; and travel expenses from Roche and Servier. C Fabregat-Franco: None. J Bridgewater: None. JW Kim: Received advisory and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Beyond Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, GC Cell, MSD, ONO, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, TCUBEit; and research funding paid to his institution from Samyang biopharm, Boryung. M Rimini: None. A La Casta: None. A Lamarca: received personal fees from NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen; honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Incyte, AAA/Novartis, QED, Servier, Astra Zeneca, EISAI, Roche, Advanz Pharma and MSD; advisory or consulting fees from EISAI, Nutricia, Ipsen, QED, Roche, Servier, Boston Scientific, Albireo Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GENFIT, TransThera Biosciences, Taiho and MSD; travel expenses from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan, Delcath Advanz Pharma and Roche; research funding paid to her institution from QED, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, AstraZeneca, GenFit, Panbela Therapeutics, Novocure GmbH, Camurus AB, Albireo Pharma, Taiho, TransThera, Jazz Therapeutics and Roche. M Kang: None. F Salani: Received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo; and travel expenses from Leo Pharma. A Castillo: None. A Lopes: None. J Hyung: None. L Rimassa: Received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Guerbet, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; advisory or consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research funding to the institution from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, TransThera Sciences, Zymeworks. J Adeva: Received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier; advisory or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier. D López-Valbuena: None. M Basagaña-Farrés: None. S Vaja: None. KM Mak: None. TV Tian: Received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Incyte, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; research funding to his instution from AstraZeneca, LOXO Oncology, Servier, Alentis, and Incyte. A Muñoz: Received personal fees from Rovi, Menarini, Stada, Medscape; advisory or consulting fees from GSK, Pfizer, BMS-Celgene, Sanofi, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, Lilly, Servier, Roche, Taiho, Leo Pharma; research funding to his institution from Leo Pharma, Sanofi, Celgene; patent for Risk assessment model in venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. A Casadei-Gardini: Received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; advisory or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, MSD, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and research funding to institution from AstraZeneca, Eisai. C Yoo: Received honoraria from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, Boryung, Mundipharma, Roche; research funding to institution from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Boryung, Lunit Inc. JW Valle: None. T Macarulla: Received honoraria from Janssen, Lilly, Esteve, Daïchi, Biontech, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals; advisory or consulting fees from Ability Pharmaceuticals SL, Arcus Bioscience Inc., AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharma, Baxter, BioLineRX Ltd, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen Bioscience Inc; travel expenses from Servier, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Incyte, Lilly, MSD and Roche; research funding to institution MSD, Novocure, QED Therapeutics, Roche Farma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Zymeworks. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources