A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials

Biostatistics

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 609-624

  Dai, James Y ^a   Hughes, James P ^b  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal inference; Meta analysis; Surrogacy

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; MALE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OVARY TUMOR; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HIV; HIV INFECTIONS; HOMOSEXUALITY, MALE; HUMANS; MALE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84866434031     PISSN: 14654644     EISSN: 14684357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxs003     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. ALONSO, A., GEYS, H. AND MOLENBERGHS, G. (2006). A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Statistics in Medicine 25, 205-221. (Pubitemid 43141503)
2. ALONSO, A. AND MOLENBERGHS, G. (2006). Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics 63, 180-186.
3. ALONSO, A., MOLENBERGHS, G., BURZYKOWSKI, T., RENARD, D., GEYS, H., SHKEDY, Z., TIBALDI, F., ABRAHANTES, J. AND BUYSE, M. (2004). Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 60, 724-728. (Pubitemid 39181117)
4. BRESLOW, N. E. AND CLAYTON, D. G. (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 9-25.
5. BRESLOW, N. E. AND DAY, N. E. (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume 1. The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications.
6. BURZYKOWSKI, T., MOLENBERGHS, G., BUYSE, M., GEYS, H. AND RENARD, D. (2001). Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. Applied Statistics 50, 405-422.
7. BUYSE, M. AND MOLENBERGHS, G. (1998). The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomization experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014-1029. (Pubitemid 28429294)
8. BUYSE, M., MOLENBERGHS, G., BURZYKOWSKI, T., RENARD, D. AND GEYS, H. (2000). The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1, 49-67.
9. CASELLA, G. AND BERGER, R. L. (2002). Statistical Inference. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
10. DANIELS, M. J. AND HUGHES, M. D. (1997). Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1965-1982. (Pubitemid 27397267)
11. ENGEL, B. (1998). A simple illustration of the failure of PQL, IRREML and APHL as approximate ML methods for mixed models for binary data. Biometrical Journal 40, 141-154.
12. FLEMING, T. R. AND DEMETS, D. L. (1996). Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled. Annals of Internal Medicine 125, 605-613. (Pubitemid 126450094)
13. FRANGAKIS, C. E. AND RUBIN, D. B. (2002). Principle stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58, 21-29.
14. FREEDMAN, L. S., GRAUBARD, B. I. AND SCHATZKIN, A. (1992). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 11, 167-178.
15. GAIL, M. H., PFEIFFER, R., VAN HOUWELINGEN, H. C. AND CARROL, R. J. (2000). On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 1, 231-246. (Pubitemid 33213533)
16. GHOSH, D., ELLIOTT, M. R. AND TAYLOR, J. M. G. (2010). Links between analysis of surrogate endpoints and endogeneity. Statistics in Medicine 29, 2869-2879.
17. GILBERT, P. B. AND HUDGENS, M. G. (2008). Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 64, 1146-1154.
18. JOFFE, M. M. AND GREENE, T. (2009). Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics 65, 530-538.
19. LAIRD, N. M. (1982). Computation of variance components using the EM algorithm. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 14, 295-303.
20. LAIRD, N. M. AND WARE, J. H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38, 963-974. (Pubitemid 14272804)
21. LI, Y. AND TAYLOR, J. M. G. (2010). Predicting treatment effects using biomarker data in a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 29, 1875-1889.
22. LI, Y., TAYLOR, J. M. G. AND ELLIOTT, M. G. (2010). A Bayesian approach to surrogacy assessment using principal stratification in clinical trials. Biometrics 66, 523-531.
23. LIANG, K. Y. AND ZEGER, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73, 13-22.
24. LIN, D. Y. AND WEI, L. J. (1989). The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazard models. Journal of American Statistical Association 84, 1074-1078.
25. MCCULLAGH, P. (1983). Quasi-likelihood functions. Annals of Statistics 11, 59-67.
26. NEWEY, W. K. AND POWELL, J. (1990). Efficient estimation of linear and type I censored regression models under conditional quantile restrictions. Econometric Theory 6, 295-317.
27. OVARIAN CANCER META-ANALYSIS PROJECT. (1991). Cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin chemotherapy of ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9, 1668-1674.
28. OVARIAN CANCER META-ANALYSIS PROJECT. (1998). Cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin chemotherapy of ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Classic Papers and Current Comments 3, 237-243.
29. PRENTICE, R. L. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8, 431-440. (Pubitemid 19105891)
30. RENARD, D., GEYS, H., MOLENBERGHS, G., BURZYKOWSKI, T. AND BUYSE, M. (2002). Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomized clinical trials with discrete outcomes. Biometrical Journal 44, 921-935. (Pubitemid 36046930)
31. ROBINS, J. M., ROTNITZKY, A. AND ZHAO, L. P. (1994). Estimation of regression coefficients when some regres-sors are not always observed. Journal of American Statistical Association 89, 846-866.
32. RODÍGUEZ, G. AND GOLDMAN, N. (1995). An assessment of estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary responses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 158, 73-89.
33. ROLAN, P. (1997). The contribution of clinical pharmacology surrogates and models to drug development\a critical appraisal. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44, 219-225. (Pubitemid 27376248)
34. ROSENBAUM, P. R. (1984). The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by treatment. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 47, 656-666.
35. RUBIN, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 688-701.
36. RUBIN, D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. The Annals of Statistics 6, 34-58.
37. THE EXPLORE STUDY TEAM. (2004). Effects of a behavioural intervention to reduce acquisition of HIV infection among men who have sex with men: the explore randomised controlled study. Lancet 364, 41-50.
38. VA N HOUWELINGEN, H. C., ARENDS, L. R. AND STIJNEN, T. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multi-variate approach and meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine 21, 589-624. (Pubitemid 34141379)
39. WEIR, C. J. AND WALLEY, R. J. (2006). Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Statistics in Medicine 25, 183-203. (Pubitemid 43141502)