Surrogate end points: Hopes and perils

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 255-259

  Alonso, Ariel ^a   Molenberghs, Geert ^a,b,c  

^a HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b International Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Boinformatics

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Information theory; Meta analysis; Surrogate marker

Indexed keywords

ANTIARRHYTHMIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; ENCAINIDE; FLECAINIDE; MORACIZINE; PLACEBO; ZIDOVUDINE;

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME; ARTICLE; CD4 LYMPHOCYTE COUNT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SAFETY; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PREDICTION; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT DURATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 46949097850     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.8.3.255     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer-Verlag, NY, USA (2005).
2. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol, Ther. 69, 89-95 (2001).
3. Ellenberg SS, Hamilton JM. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Stat. Med. 8, 405-413 (1989).
4. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misted? Ann. Intern. Med. 125, 605-613 (1996).
5. Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and ecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 321, 406-412 (1989).
6. De Gruttola V, Tu XM. Modelling progression of CD-4 lymphocyte count and its relationship to survival time. Biometn cs 50, 1003-1014 (1995).
7. Lagakos SW, Hoth DF. Surrogate markers in AIDS: where are we? Where are we going? Ann. Intern. Med. 116, 599-601 (1992).
8. De Gruttola V, Fleming TR, Lin DY, Coombs R. Validating surrogate markers - are we being naive? J. Infect. Dis. 175, 237-246 (1997).
9. Fleming TR. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Drug Inf. J. 30, 545-551 (1996).
10. Ferentz AE. Integrating pharmacogenomics into drug development. Pharmacogenomics 3, 453-467 (2002).
11. Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41, 347-366 (2001).
12. Dunn N, Mann RD. Prescription-event and other forms of epidemiological monitoring of side-effects in the UK. Clin. Exp. Allergy 29, 217-239 (1999).
13. Jones TC. CAI for a new approach to the process of clinical trials and drug registration. BMJ 322, 920-923 (2001).
14. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer-Verlag, NY, USA (2000).
15. Heise C, Sampson-Johannes A, Williams A, McCormick F, Von Hoff DD, Kirn DH. ONYX015, an FIB gene-attenuated adenovirus, causes tumor-specific cytolysis and antitumoral efcacy that can be augmented by standard chemo-therapeutic agents. Nat. Med. 3, 639-645 (1997).
16. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: denitions and operational criteria. Stat. Med. 8, 431-440 (1989).
17. Fleming TR, Prentice RL, Pepe MS, Glidden D. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Stat. Med. 13, 955-968 (1994).
18. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for dironic diseases. Stat. Med. 11, 167-178 (1992).
19. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014-1029 (1998).
20. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1, 49-67 (2000).
21. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat. Med. 16, 1515-1527 (1997).
22. Renard D, Geys H, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Buyse M. Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomized clinical trials with discrete outcomes. Biom. J. 44, 921-935 (2002).
23. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D. Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure-time endpoints. Appl. Stat. 50, 405-422 (2001).
24. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Piedbois P; for the Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer. Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 356, 373-378 (2000).
25. Alonso A, Geys H, Molenberghs G, Kenward MG. Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: canonical correlation approach. Biometrics 60, 845-853 (2004).
26. Alonso A, Molenberghs G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theoretic perspective. Biometrics 63, 180-186 (2007).
27. Chen H, Geng Z, Jia J. Criteria for surrogate end points. J. R. Stat. Son Ser. B 69, 919-932 (2007).
28. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratication in causal inference. Biometrics 58, 21-29 (2002).
29. Burzykowski T, Buyse M, Yothers G, Sakamoto J, Sargent D. Exploring and validating surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer. Lifetime Data Anal. 14, 54-64 (2008).