|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Clinical Trials, Vol. 4, No. 6,
587-597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774507084979
Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints
Assam Pryseley
Hasselt University, Center for Statistics, Agoralaan 1, B3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Abel Tilahun
Hasselt University, Center for Statistics, Agoralaan 1, B3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Ariel Alonso
Hasselt University, Center for Statistics, Agoralaan 1, B3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Geert Molenberghs
Hasselt University, Center for Statistics, Agoralaan 1, B3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium, geert.molenberghs{at}uhasselt.be
Background Surrogate endpoints potentially reduce the duration and/or increase the amount of information available in a study, thereby diminishing patient burden and cost. They may also increase the effectiveness and reliability of research, through beneficial impact on noncompliance and missingness.
Purpose In this article, we review the meta-analytic approach of Buyse et al. (2000) and its extension to mixed continuous and binary endpoints by Molenberghs Geys, and Buyse (2001).
Methods An information-theoretic alternative, based on Alonso and Molenberghs (2007a) is proposed. The method is evaluated using simulations and application to data from an ophthalmologic trial, with lines of vision lost at 6 months as candidate surrogate endpoints for lines of vision lost at 12 months. The method is implemented as an R function.
Results The information-theoretic approach is based on solid theory, easy to apply, and enjoys elegant properties. While the information-theoretic approach appears to be somewhat biased downwards, this is due to fact that it operates at explicitly observed outcomes, without the need for unobserved, latent scales. This is a desirable property.
Limitations While easy-to-use and implement, the theoretical foundation of the information-theory approach is more mathematical. It produces some bias for small to moderate trial/center sizes, and hence is recommended primarily for sufficiently large trials.
Conclusions Since the meta-analytic framework can be computationally extremely expensive, the information-theoretic approach of Alonso and Molenberghs (2007a) is a viable alternative. For the ophthalmologic case study, the conclusion is that the lines of vision lost at sixth month do have some, but not overwhelming promise as a surrogate endpoint. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 587—597. http://ctj.sagepub.com
References
- Ellenberg SS, Hamilton JM Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Stat Med 1989; 8: 405—13.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- DeGruttola V., Wulfsohn M., Fishk MA, Tsiatis, AA Modelling the relationship between survival and CD4 lymphocytes in patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. J Acq Imm Def Synd 1993; 6: 359—65.
- Fleming TR, DeMets DL Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Internal Med 1996; 125: 605—13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G., Buyse M. The validation of surrogate endpoints using data from randomized clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. J Roy Stat Soc A 2004; 167: 103—24.[CrossRef]
- Prentice RL Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431—40.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992; 11: 167—78.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Buyse M. Molenberghs G. The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998; 54: 1014—29.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Albert JM, Ioannidis JPA, Reichelderfer P., et al. Statistical issues for HIV surrogate endpoints: point and counterpoint. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2435—62.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Daniels MJ, Hughes MD Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat in Med 1997; 16: 1515—27.[CrossRef]
- Buyse M., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 49—67.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Gail MH, Pfeiffer R., van Houwelingen HC, et al. On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 231—46.[Abstract]
- Molenberghs G., Geys, H., Buyse M. Evaluation of surrogate end-points in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Stat Med 2001; 20: 3023—38.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G., Buyse M. (2005). The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer, New York.
- Alonso A., Molenberghs G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theorety perspective. Biometrics 2007a; 63: 180—86.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Tilahun A., Assam P., Alonso A., et al. Flexible surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous endpoints, using R and SAS. Comp Stat Data Anal 2007a; 51: 4152—63.[CrossRef]
- Tilahun A., Assam P., Alonso A., et al. Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with binary endpoints, Using SAS. J Biopharm Stat 2007b.
- Alonso A. Molenberghs G. Evaluating time to cancer recurrence as a surrogate marker for survival from an information theory perspective. Stat Meth Med Res 2007b.
- Tibaldi FS, Cortiñas Abrahantes J., Molenberghs G., et al. Simplified hierarchical linear models for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. J Stat Comp Simul 2003; 73: 643—658.[CrossRef]
- Molenberghs G. Verbeke G. (2005). Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. Springer, New York.
- Alonso A., Molenberghs G., Geys, H., et al. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Stat Med 2005; 25: 205—11.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 1948; 27: 379—423 and 623—56.
- Cover T., Tomas J. (1991). Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, New York.
- Kent J. Information gain and a general measure of correlation. Biometrika 1993; 70: 163—73.[CrossRef]
- Alonso A., Geys H., Molenberghs G., et al. Investigating the criterion validity of psychiatric symptom scales using surrogate marker validation methodology. J Biopharm Stat 2002; 12: 161—78.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Burzykowski T., Buyse M. Surrogate threshold effect: An alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 5: 173—86.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Baker SG A simple meta-analytic approach for binary surrogate and true endpoints. Biostatistics 2006; 7: 57—70.
- Alonso A., Geys H., Molenberghs G., et al. Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: canonical correlation approach. Biometrics 2004b; 60: 845—53.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
