Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

Labeling of Breast Cancer Patient-derived Xenografts with Traceable Reporters for Tumor Growth and Metastasis Studies
Published on: November 30, 2016
Endpoint Governance and Reporting Transparency in Biomarker-Guided Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review, 2015 to 2024
Fidelis Nwachukwu1, Mary Obimma2
1Roseman University College of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV.
Abstract:
Biomarker-guided oncology trials frequently prioritize surrogate endpoints to enable efficient development in molecularly defined populations, often before mature overall survival (OS) data are available. We conducted a PRISMA 2020-guided systematic review of prospective interventional biomarker-guided oncology trials published between 2015 and 2024 to evaluate endpoint governance structure (prespecified primary endpoint selection and hierarchy) and endpoint transparency (ability to unambiguously identify prespecified primary endpoint from the full text). Endpoint-opaque trials were retained to quantify opacity but excluded from endpoint-type classification analyses. Among endpoint-transparent trials, we evaluated primary endpoint selection, OS reporting at primary publication, and OS maturity (mature/final vs. immature/interim), and used penalized logistic regression to assess predictors of objective response rate (ORR) primacy and OS immaturity. Among 242 eligible full texts, 166 (68.6%) were endpoint-opaque. Seventy endpoint-transparent trials comprised the analytic cohort: ORR and progression-free survival (PFS) were the prespecified primary endpoints in 23/70 (32.9%) and 33/70 (47.1%) trials, respectively, while OS was the sole primary endpoint in 2/70 (2.9%). OS was reported at primary publication in 62/70 trials (88.6%); among OS-reported trials with classifiable maturity (n=61), OS was mature/final in 30/61 (49.2%) and immature/interim in 31/61 (50.8%). ORR primacy was associated with lower odds of immature OS at primary publication (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.37-0.90). In biomarker-guided oncology, surrogate endpoints commonly serve as decision-defining primary outcomes, while OS is frequently reported but often immature at first publication. Endpoint opacity is prevalent and limits transparent evaluation of evidentiary sufficiency, underscoring the need for explicit endpoint hierarchy reporting.
More Related Videos
07:40Preparation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell Pellets and Plasma from a Single Blood Draw at Clinical Trial Sites for Biomarker Analysis
Published on: March 20, 2021
08:52Profiling Sensitivity to Targeted Therapies in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patient-Derived Organoids
Published on: November 22, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Overview and Classification