Surrogate endpoints: Wishful thinking or reality?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 98, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 502-503

  Baker, Stuart G ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; TUMOR MARKER;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOSTATISTICS; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NULL HYPOTHESIS; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY; BLOOD; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; IMMUNOLOGY; MALE; NOTE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROSTATE TUMOR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 33646441193     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj153     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Gaddum JH. Lognormal distributions. Nature 1945;156:463-6.
2. Fleming TR, Demets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605-13.
3. Weir CJ, Walley RJ. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Stat Med 2006;25:183-203.
4. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8:431-40.
5. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998;54:1014-29.
6. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Stat Med 1992;11:167-78.
7. Lin DY, Fleming TR, DeGruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med 1999;16:1515-27.
8. Petrylak DP, Ankerst DP, Jiang CS, Tangen CM, Hussain MHA, Lara PN Jr, et al. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen declines for surrogacy in patients treated on SWOG 99-16. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:516-21.
9. Flandre P, Saidi Y. Letter to the editor. Stat Med 1999;18:107-15.
10. Baker SG. A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics 2006;7:57-70.