Abstract
Cancer screening is aimed primarily at reducing deaths. Thus, site-specific cancer mortality is the appropriate endpoint for evaluating screening interventions. However, it is also the most demanding endpoint, requiring follow-up and a large numbers of patients order to have adequate power. Therefore, it is highly desirable to have surrogate endpoints that can reliably predict mortality reductions many years earlier. We here review a range of surrogate markers in terms of their potential advantages and pitfalls, and argue that a measure which weights incident cancers according to their predicted mortality has many advantages over other measures and should be used more routinely. Application to the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial data suggests that predicted colorectal cancer mortality, based on stage-specific incidence, is a more powerful endpoint than actual mortality and could advance the analysis time by about three years. Total colorectal cancer incidence as a surrogate endpoint provides little advance in the analysis time over actual mortality. The approach requires reliable prognostic data, (e.g. stage), for both the study cohort and a representative sample of the whole population. The routine collection of such data should be a priority for cancer registries. Surrogate endpoints should not replace a long-term analysis based directly on mortality, but can provide reliable early indicators which can be useful both for monitoring ongoing screening programmes and for making policy decisions.