Surrogate end points for overall survival: A meta-analysis exploring adequacy of progression-free survival and objective response in randomized NSCLC trials.

N Nehemias Guevara (2Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, Hematology Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant, Saint Louis, United States) W Wint Yan Aung (Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Lake Success, NY) H Hector J. Garcia Pleitez (Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX) N Noemy Evangelista Coreas (University of El Salvador, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Salvadoran Social Security Institute, San Salvador, El Salvador) V Vaidehi Panchal (Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, NY) A Ananta Sriram (Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO) S Syeda Ashna Fatima Kamal (1Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, Division of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Saint Louis, United States) J Jaclyn Morales (North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY) A Asha Ricciuti (Internal Medicine Department, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO) T Theodore Seth Thomas (Saint Louis VA Medical Center John Cochran Division, St. Louis, MO)

Abstract

e20702 Background: Surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are widely used in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials, yet their ability to reliably predict overall survival (OS) remains uncertain, particularly in the post-2015 era of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. We evaluated trial-level surrogacy of PFS and ORR for OS across randomized clinical trials using random-effects weighted meta-regression, with prespecified analyses by trial era. Methods: We conducted a systematic, trial-level meta-analysis of randomized studies in advanced or metastatic NSCLC reporting OS hazard ratios (HRs) and at least one surrogate endpoint (PFS HRs and/or ORR). The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251266621). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception through the final search date. Two reviewers independently screened records and full texts, resolving discrepancies by consensus or third-party adjudication. Treatment effects were analyzed on the log scale (log[HR] for OS and PFS; log[RR] for ORR), with standard errors derived from 95% confidence intervals when required. Trial-level surrogacy was assessed using random-effects weighted least-squares meta-regression, modeling log(HR_OS) as a function of log(HR_PFS) and separately log(RR_ORR). Era-stratified analyses (pre-2015, 2015, post-2015) and interaction testing were prespecified. Surrogacy strength was quantified using a weighted R² analogue. Small-study effects were evaluated using Egger’s regression. Analyses were performed using Python (version 3.14.2). Results: A total of 190 trials were included; 150 contributed to the PFS–OS analysis and 98 to the ORR–OS analysis. Overall, PFS showed a statistically significant but modest association with OS (β = 0.331; 95% CI, 0.230–0.433; p < 0.001), explaining limited between-trial variability (R² = 0.216). In post-2015 trials (k = 124), the association remained significant (β = 0.332; p < 0.001) but explained little OS variability (R² = 0.193), with no significant interaction by era. ORR demonstrated a weak and inconsistent association with OS (overall β = −0.256; p = 0.029), with non-significant associations in pre-2015 trials. Egger regression showed no evidence of small-study effects. Conclusions: Across randomized trials in advanced NSCLC, PFS and objective response demonstrate limited trial-level surrogacy for overall survival. Surrogacy strength did not meaningfully improve in the post-2015 era despite widespread adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. These findings support cautious reliance on PFS or ORR as substitutes for OS in contemporary NSCLC trials and underscore the need for OS validation or context-specific endpoint selection.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (10)

N

Nehemias Guevara

2Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, Hematology Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant, Saint Louis, United States

W

Wint Yan Aung

Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Lake Success, NY

H

Hector J. Garcia Pleitez

Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX

N

Noemy Evangelista Coreas

University of El Salvador, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Salvadoran Social Security Institute, San Salvador, El Salvador

V

Vaidehi Panchal

Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, NY

A

Ananta Sriram

Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

S

Syeda Ashna Fatima Kamal

1Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, Division of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Saint Louis, United States

J

Jaclyn Morales

North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY

A

Asha Ricciuti

Internal Medicine Department, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO

T

Theodore Seth Thomas

Saint Louis VA Medical Center John Cochran Division, St. Louis, MO