Predicting treatment effects using biomarker data in a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 18, 2010, Pages 1875-1889

  Li, Y ^a   Taylor, J M G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Auxiliary variables; Biomarker; Clinical trials; Meta analysis; Mixed model; Surrogate

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISEASE MARKER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ALGORITHMS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77955367565     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3931     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998; 54:1014-1029. (Pubitemid 28429294)
2. Baker SG, Kramer BS. Biomarker, Surrogate Endpoints, and Early Detection Imaging Tests: Reducing Confusion. Available from: http://www.icsa.org/bulletin/ Bulletin-1-2004-Contents/A3-25-controverstial-issues-v4.doc.
3. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8:431-440. (Pubitemid 19105891)
4. Hsu C, Taylor JMG, Murray S, Commenges D. Survival analysis using auxiliary variables via nonparametric multiple imputation. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3503-3517. (Pubitemid 44575166)
5. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:167-178.
6. Lin DY, Fleming TR, DeGruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect captured by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:1515-1527.
7. Bycott PW, Taylor JMG. An evaluation of a measure of the proportion of the treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Controlled Clinical Trials 1998; 19:555-568.
8. Wang Y, Taylor JMG. A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 2003; 58:803-812.
9. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1:49-67.
10. De Gruttola V, Fleming T, Lin DY, Coombs R. Perspective: validating surrogate markers-are we being nave? The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1997; 175:237-246. (Pubitemid 27052228)
11. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996; 125:605-613.
12. Baker SG, Kramer BS. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3:16.
13. Cook RJ, Lawless JF. Some comments on efficiency gains from auxiliary information for right-censored data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 96:191-202.
14. Malani HM. A modification of the re-distribution to the right algorithm using disease markers. Biometrika 1995; 82:515-526.
15. Murray S, Tsiatis AA. Nonparametric survival estimation using prognostic longitudinal covariates. Biometrics 1996; 52:137-151. (Pubitemid 26125098)
16. Venkatraman ES, Begg CB. Properties of a nonparametric test for early comparison of treatments in clinical trials in the presence of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 1999; 55:1171-1176.
17. Gail M, Pfeiffer R, Houwelingen HCV, Carroll RJ. On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2000; 1:231-246.
18. Henderson CR. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 1975; 31:423-447.
19. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73:13-22.
20. Laird NM, Lang N, Stram D. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982; 38:963-974.
21. Robinson GK. That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Statistical Science 1991; 6:15-51.
22. Ghosh M, Rao NK. Small area estimation: an appraisal. Statistical Science 1994; 9:55-76.
23. Morris C. Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and application (with Discussion). Journal of American Statistical Association 1983; 78:47-65.
24. Louis TA, Zelterman D. Bayesian approaches to research synthesis. In The Handbook of Research Synthesis, Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds). Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 1994.
25. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL, CIGTS Investigators. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS): Study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:653-662.
26. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data (2nd edn). Wiley: New York, 2002.
27. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints, Chapter 18. Springer: New York, 2004.
28. McLean RA, Sanders WL. Approximating degrees of freedom for standard errors in mixed linear models. Proceedings of the Statistical Computing Section, American Statistical Association, New Orleans, 1988; 50-59.
29. McLean RA, Sanders WL, Stroup WW. A unified approach to mixed linear models. The American Statistician 1991; 45:54-64.