The risky reliance on small surrogate end point studies when planning a large prevention trial

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society

Volumn 176, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 603-608

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Kramer, Barnett S ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer prevention; Cardiovascular disease; Prentice criterion; Principal stratification; Sample size calculation; Surrogate end point

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872662173     PISSN: 09641998     EISSN: 1467985X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01052.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group (1994) The effect of vitamin E and beta Carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. New Engl. J. Med., 330, 1029-1035.
2. Atkin, W. S., Edwards, R., Kralj-Hans, I., Wooldrage, K., Hart, A. R., Northover, J. M., Parkin, D. M., Wardle J., Duffy, S. W., Cuzick, J. and UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial Investigators (2010) Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 375, 1624-1633.
3. Baker, S. G., Lindeman, K. S. and Kramer, B. S. (2011) Clarifying the role of principal stratification in the paired availability design. Int. J. Biostatist., 7, article 25.
4. Baker, S. G., Sargent, D. J., Buyse, M. and Burzykowski, T. (2012) Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics, 68, 248-257.
5. Buyse, M. and Molenberghs, G. (1998) The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics, 54, 1014-1029.
6. Frangakis, C. E. and Rubin, D. B. (2002) Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics, 58, 21-29.
7. Halperin, M., Rogot, E., Gurian, J. and Ederer, F. (1968) Sample sizes for medical trials with special reference to long-term therapy. J. Chron. Dis., 21, 13-24.
8. Lam, S., leRiche, J. C., McWilliams, A., Macaulay, C., Dyachkova, Y., Szabo, E., Mayo, J., Schellenberg, R., Coldman, A., Hawk, E. and Gazdar, A. (2004) A randomized phase IIb trial of pulmicort turbuhaler (budesonide) in people with dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium. Clin. Cancer Res., 10, 6502-6511.
9. Lassere, M. N. (2008) The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate end points. Statist. Meth. Med. Res., 17, 303-340.
10. Prentice, R. L. (1989) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Statist. Med., 8, 431-440.
11. Psaty, B. M., Weiss, N. S., Furberg, C. D., Koepsell, T. D., Siscovick, D. S., Rosendaal, F. R., Smith, N. L., Heckbert, S. R., Kaplan, R. C., Lin, D., Fleming, T. R. and Wagner, E. H. (1999) Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. J. Am. Med. Ass., 282, 786-790.
12. Thompson, P. A., Wertheim, B. C., Zell, J. A., Chen, W. P., McLaren, C. E., LaFleur, B. J., Meyskens, F. L. and Gerner, E. W. (2010) Levels of rectal mucosal polyamines and prostaglandin E2 predict, ability of DFMO and Sulindac to prevent colorectal adenoma. Gastroenterology, 139, 797-805.
13. Weir, C. J. and Walle, R. J. (2006) Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate end points: a literature review. Statist. Med., 25, 183-203.