Critical Appraisal: Prognostic versus Predictive Surrogate Markers in Oncology

Clicks: 3
ID: 315584
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #95 of 333 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 333 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
In this era of adoption of novel biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to monitor the risk of relapse or detect early progression, and renewed enthusiasm for previously studied biomarkers such as pathological complete response rates (pCR), there is a growing confusion regarding the utility of these biomarkers to predict outcomes at both individual-level and trial levels. This distinction between prognostic and predictive utility of biomarkers is important because misunderstanding between the two can lead to incorrect clinical inferences and misguided regulatory decisions. In this commentary, we discuss how to distinguish between prognostic and predictive biomarkers, when to consider them strong enough to be a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials, and whether they should change clinical practice. We use examples from DESTINY-Breast11, SERENA-6, DYNAMIC-III and IMvigor011 trials to elucidate these points. Destiny-Breast 11, SERENA-6 and IMvigor011 all three have recently been topics of debate at the FDA with the FDA offering approvals based on both Destiny-Breast 11 and IMvigor011 while the Oncology Drug Advisory Committee voting against approval based on SERENA-6.
Reference Key
openalex_W7163166807 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Aliyah Pabani, Bishal Gyawali
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djag174
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djag174
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.