A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria

被引:39
作者
Alonso, A
Molenberghs, G
Geys, H
Buyse, M
Vangeneugden, T
机构
[1] Hasselt Univ, Ctr Stat, BE-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
[2] Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceut Res & Dev, Brussels, Belgium
[3] IDDI, Brussels, Belgium
[4] Tibotec, B-2800 Mechelen, Belgium
关键词
hierarchical model; likelihood reduction factor; Prentice criteria; surrogate endpoints;
D O I
10.1002/sim.2315
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Part of the recent literature on the evaluation of surrogate endpoints starts from a multi-trial approach which leads to a definition of validity in terms of the quality of both trial-level and individual-level association between a potential surrogate and a true endpoint, Buyse et al. These authors proposed their methodology based on the simplest cross-sectional case in which both the surrogate and the true endpoint are continuous and normally distributed. Different variations to this theme have been implemented for binary responses, times to event, combinations of binary and continuous endpoints, etc. However, a drawback of this methodology is that different settings have led to different definitions to quantify the association at the individual-level. In the longitudinal setting; Alonso et al. defined a class of canonical correlation functions that can be used to study surrogacy at the trial and individual-level. In the present work, we propose a new approach to evaluate surrogacy in the repeated measurements framework, we also show the connection between this proposal and the previous ones reported in the literature. Finally, we extend this concept to the non-normal case using the so-called 'likelihood reduction factor' (LRF) a new validation measure based on some of the Prentice's criteria. We apply the previous methodology using data from two clinical studies in psychiatry and ophthalmology. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:205 / 221
页数:17
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Choice of units of analysis and modeling strategies in multilevel hierarchical models [J].
Abrahantes, JC ;
Molenberghs, G ;
Burzykowski, T ;
Shkedy, Z ;
Abad, AA ;
Renard, D .
COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2004, 47 (03) :537-563
[2]   Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: Canonical correlation approach [J].
Alonso, A ;
Geys, H ;
Molenberghs, G ;
Kenward, MG ;
Vangeneugden, T .
BIOMETRICS, 2004, 60 (04) :845-853
[3]   Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements [J].
Alonso, A ;
Geys, H ;
Molenberghs, G ;
Kenward, MG ;
Vangeneugden, T .
BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 45 (08) :931-+
[4]  
Alonso Ariel, 2002, J Biopharm Stat, V12, P161, DOI 10.1081/BIP-120015741
[5]   SURROGATE END-POINTS - A BASIS FOR A RATIONAL APPROACH [J].
BOISSEL, JP ;
COLLET, JP ;
MOLEUR, P ;
HAUGH, M .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1992, 43 (03) :235-244
[6]   Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments [J].
Buyse, M ;
Molenberghs, G .
BIOMETRICS, 1998, 54 (03) :1014-1029
[7]  
Buyse M, 2000, Biostatistics, V1, P49, DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49
[8]  
Daniels M. J., 1997, STAT MED, V16, P1515
[9]   SURROGATE AND AUXILIARY END-POINTS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS, WITH POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS IN CANCER AND AIDS RESEARCH [J].
FLEMING, TR ;
PRENTICE, RL ;
PEPE, MS ;
GLIDDEN, D .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1994, 13 (09) :955-968
[10]   Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? [J].
Fleming, TR ;
DeMets, DL .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 125 (07) :605-613