Surrogate endpoint analysis: An exercise in extrapolation

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 105, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 316-320

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

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE MARKER; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LUNG CANCER; LUNG DYSPLASIA; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNCERTAINTY;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PRIMARY PREVENTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84874906722     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs527     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Torri V, Simon R, Russek-Cohen E, Midthune D, Friedman M. Statistical model to determine the relationship of response and survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84(6):407-414.
2. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167-178.
3. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med. 1997;16(17):1965-1982.
4. Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ. On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2000;1(3):231-246.
5. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, and Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2000;1(1):49-67.
6. Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed model. Stat Med. 2005;24(2):163-182.
7. Weir CJ, Walle RJ. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006;25(2):183-203.
8. Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Schiff M, Rees D. Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? An analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the biomarker-surrogacy (biosurrogate) evaluation schema (BSES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:27.
9. Joffe MM, Greene T. Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics. 2009;65(2):530-538.
10. Li Y, Taylor JMG, Elliott MR, Sargent DJ. Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials. Biostatistics. 2011;12(3):478-492.
11. Ghosh D, Taylor JMG, Sargent DJ. Meta-analysis for surrogacy: accelerated failure time models and semicompeting risks modeling. Biometrics. 2012;68(1):226-247.
12. Dai JY, Hughes JP. A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2012;13(4):609-624.
13. Baker SG, Kramer BS. The risky reliance on small surrogate endpoint studies when planning a large prevention trial [published online ahead of print June 28, 2012]. J R Stat Soc (A). doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01052.x.
14. Baker, SG, Sargent DJ, Buyse M, Burzykowski T. Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics. 2012;68(1):248-257.
15. Palmgren J. Precision of double sampling estimators for comparing two probabilities. Biometrika. 1987;74(4):687-694.
16. Chernoff H, Haitovsky Y. Locally optimal design for comparing two probabilities from binomial data subject to misclassification. Biometrika. 1990;77(4):797-805.
17. Finkelstein D, Schoenfeld DA. Analyzing survival in the presence of an auxiliary variable. Stat Med. 1994;13(17):1747-1754.
18. 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. 1994;13(9):955-968.
19. Pepe MS. Inference using surrogate outcome data and a validation sample. Biometrika 1992;79(2):355-365.
20. Goldman B, LeBlanc M, Crowley J. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints. Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):14-22.
21. Stearns V, Gallagher A, Kleer CG, et al. A pilot study to establish a clinical model to perform phase II studies of breast cancer chemopreventive agents in women at high risk with biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for activity. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(24):8332-8340.
22. Baker SG. Paradoxes in carcinogenesis should spur new avenues of research: an historical perspective. Disruptive Sci and Technol. 2012;1(2):100-107.
23. Dunn BK, Akpa E. Biomarkers as surrogate endpoints in cancer trials. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2012;28(2):99-108.
24. Lam S, leRiche JC, McWilliams A, et al. A randomized phase IIb trial of pulmicort turbuhaler (budesonide) in people with dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium. Clinical Cancer Research. 2004;10(19):6502-6511.
25. The Alpha-Tocopherol Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(15):1029-1103.
26. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):431-440.
27. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1014-1029.
28. Jeon JW, Chung HY, Bae JS. Chances of Simpson's paradox. J. Korean Statist Soc. 1987;16(2):117-125.
29. Baker SG, Kramer BS. Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001;10(9):867-872.
30. Wainer H. The BK-plot: making Simpson's paradox clear to the masses. Chance 2002;15(3):60-62.
31. Baker SG, Kramer BS. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:16.
32. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002;58(1):21-29.
33. Freedman L. Commentary on assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med. 2005;24(2):183-185.
34. Hernan MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):13-15.
35. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Dvorin EL, Welch HG. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks. Br Med J. 2006;333:1248.
36. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992; 92(2):121-124.
37. Naylor C, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(11):916-921.
38. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993; 8(10):543-548.
39. Sargent DJ, Wieand S, Haller DG, et al. Disease-free survival (DFS) vs. overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20, 898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8664-8670.
40. Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Carroll K, et al. Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(33):5218-5224.
41. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(18):3766-3775.
42. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J R Stat Soc (A). 2004;167(1):103-124.
43. Ellenberg SS. Surrogate endpoints. Br J Cancer. 1993;68(3):457-459.