IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v55y2011i9p2748-2757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative assessment of trial-level surrogacy measures for candidate time-to-event surrogate endpoints in clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Shi, Qian
  • Renfro, Lindsay A.
  • Bot, Brian M.
  • Burzykowski, Tomasz
  • Buyse, Marc
  • Sargent, Daniel J.

Abstract

Various meta-analytical approaches have been applied to evaluate putative surrogate endpoints (S) of primary clinical endpoints (T), however a systematic assessment of their performance is lacking. Existing methods in the meta-analytic framework can be grouped into two types--conventional and model-based trial-level surrogacy (TLS) measures. Both conventional and model-based TLS measures assess the ability to predict the treatment effect on T based on an observed treatment effect on putative S. Conventional TLS measures include correlation coefficients and R-square measures from weighted linear regression. Model-based TLS includes Copula R2 proposed by Burzykowski et al. (2001). We examined and compared the estimation performance of these frequently used surrogacy measures in a large-scale simulation study. The impact of several key factors on the estimation performance was assessed, including the strength of the true surrogacy, the amount of effective information provided by available data, and the range of within-trial treatment effect on S and T. The TLS can be estimated accurately and precisely by both types of surrogacy measures when the true surrogacy is strong, number of trials is large, and the range of within-trial treatment effects is wide. When one or more factors deviate from the "best" scenarios, both types of TLS measures tend to underestimate the true surrogacy with increased variability. The estimation performance of conventional measures is similar to model-based measures, but with higher computational efficiency. The findings are applied to a large individual patient data pooled analysis in colon cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Shi, Qian & Renfro, Lindsay A. & Bot, Brian M. & Burzykowski, Tomasz & Buyse, Marc & Sargent, Daniel J., 2011. "Comparative assessment of trial-level surrogacy measures for candidate time-to-event surrogate endpoints in clinical trials," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 2748-2757, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:55:y:2011:i:9:p:2748-2757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947311001058
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomasz Burzykowski & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Buyse & Helena Geys & Didier Renard, 2001. "Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(4), pages 405-422.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Casimir Ledoux Sofeu & Virginie Rondeau, 2020. "How to use frailtypack for validating failure-time surrogate endpoints using individual patient data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Renfro, Lindsay A. & Shi, Qian & Xue, Yuan & Li, Junlong & Shang, Hongwei & Sargent, Daniel J., 2014. "Center-within-trial versus trial-level evaluation of surrogate endpoints," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erin E. Gabriel & Michael J. Daniels & M. Elizabeth Halloran, 2016. "Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1046-1054, December.
    2. Casimir Ledoux Sofeu & Virginie Rondeau, 2020. "How to use frailtypack for validating failure-time surrogate endpoints using individual patient data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Ariel Alonso & Helena Geys & Geert Molenberghs & Michael G. Kenward & Tony Vangeneugden, 2004. "Validation of Surrogate Markers in Multiple Randomized Clinical Trials with Repeated Measurements: Canonical Correlation Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 845-853, December.
    4. Arielle Anderer & Hamsa Bastani & John Silberholz, 2022. "Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1982-2002, March.
    5. Hirofumi Michimae & Takeshi Emura, 2022. "Bayesian ridge estimators based on copula-based joint prior distributions for regression coefficients," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 2741-2769, November.
    6. Renfro, Lindsay A. & Shi, Qian & Xue, Yuan & Li, Junlong & Shang, Hongwei & Sargent, Daniel J., 2014. "Center-within-trial versus trial-level evaluation of surrogate endpoints," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    7. Bo-Hong Wu & Hirofumi Michimae & Takeshi Emura, 2020. "Meta-analysis of individual patient data with semi-competing risks under the Weibull joint frailty–copula model," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 1525-1552, December.
    8. Tomasz Burzykowski & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Buyse, 2004. "The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: a case‐study in advanced colorectal cancer," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 167(1), pages 103-124, February.
    9. Debashis Ghosh & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Daniel J. Sargent, 2012. "Meta-analysis for Surrogacy: Accelerated Failure Time Models and Semicompeting Risks Modeling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 226-232, March.
    10. Rui Zhuang & Ying Qing Chen, 2020. "Measuring Surrogacy in Clinical Research," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(3), pages 295-323, December.
    11. Layla Parast & Lu Tian & Tianxi Cai, 2020. "Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 245-265, April.
    12. Lorna Wheaton & Anastasios Papanikos & Anne Thomas & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2023. "Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 539-552, July.
    13. Lindsay A. Renfro & Bradley P. Carlin & Daniel J. Sargent, 2012. "Bayesian Adaptive Trial Design for a Newly Validated Surrogate Endpoint," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 258-267, March.
    14. Xiaoyun Li & Cong Chen & Wen Li, 2018. "Adaptive Biomarker Population Selection in Phase III Confirmatory Trials with Time-to-Event Endpoints," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 324-341, August.
    15. Debashis Ghosh, 2009. "On Assessing Surrogacy in a Single Trial Setting Using a Semicompeting Risks Paradigm," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 521-529, June.
    16. Steffen Fieuws & Geert Verbeke, 2006. "Pairwise Fitting of Mixed Models for the Joint Modeling of Multivariate Longitudinal Profiles," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 424-431, June.
    17. Debashis Ghosh, 2008. "Semiparametric Inference for Surrogate Endpoints with Bivariate Censored Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 149-156, March.
    18. Welz, Thilo & Viechtbauer, Wolfgang & Pauly, Markus, 2023. "Cluster-robust estimators for multivariate mixed-effects meta-regression," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Layla Parast & Tianxi Cai & Lu Tian, 2023. "Testing for heterogeneity in the utility of a surrogate marker," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 799-810, June.
    20. Ghosh Debashis, 2008. "On the Plackett Distribution with Bivariate Censored Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:55:y:2011:i:9:p:2748-2757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.