Literature DB >> 20680981

Predicting treatment effects using biomarker data in a meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Y Li1, J M G Taylor.   

Abstract

A biomarker (S) measured after randomization in a clinical trial can often provide information about the true endpoint (T) and hence the effect of treatment (Z). It can usually be measured earlier and more easily than T and as such may be useful to shorten the trial length. A potential use of S is to completely replace T as a surrogate endpoint to evaluate whether the treatment is effective. Another potential use of S is to serve as an auxiliary variable to help provide information and improve the inference on the treatment effect prediction when T is not completely observed. The objective of this report is to focus on its role as an auxiliary variable and to identify situations when S can be useful to increase efficiency in predicting the treatment effect in a new trial in a multiple-trial setting. Both S and T are continuous. We find that higher efficiency gain is associated with higher trial-level correlation but not individual-level correlation when only S, but not T is measured in a new trial; but, the amount of information recovery from S is usually negligible. However, when T is partially observed in the new trial and the individual-level correlation is relatively high, there is substantial efficiency gain by using S. For design purposes, our results suggest that it is often important to collect markers that have high adjusted individual-level correlation with T and at least a small amount of data on T. The results are illustrated using simulations and an example from a glaucoma clinical trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20680981      PMCID: PMC4153610          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3931

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  17 in total

1.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments.

Authors:  M Buyse; G Molenberghs; T Burzykowski; D Renard; H Geys
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes.

Authors:  M H Gail; R Pfeiffer; H C Van Houwelingen; R J Carroll
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  Yue Wang; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?

Authors:  T R Fleming; D L DeMets
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Perspective: validating surrogate markers--are we being naive?

Authors:  V De Gruttola; T Fleming; D Y Lin; R Coombs
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.226

7.  Nonparametric survival estimation using prognostic longitudinal covariates.

Authors:  S Murray; A A Tsiatis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  D Y Lin; T R Fleming; V De Gruttola
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Random-effects models for longitudinal data.

Authors:  N M Laird; J H Ware
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  5 in total

1.  A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  James Y Dai; James P Hughes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Event-Free Survival, a Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Composite End Point, Is Not a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiation.

Authors:  Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Marc Buyse; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Oliver Sartor; Howard Soule; Donald Berry; Noel Clarke; Laurence Collette; Anthony D'Amico; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; James Dignam; Mario Eisenberger; Nicholas James; Karim Fizazi; Silke Gillessen; Yohann Loriot; Nicolas Mottet; Wendy Parulekar; Howard Sandler; Daniel E Spratt; Matthew R Sydes; Bertrand Tombal; Scott Williams; Christopher J Sweeney
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Surrogacy marker paradox measures in meta-analytic settings.

Authors:  Michael R Elliott; Anna S C Conlon; Yun Li; Nico Kaciroti; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Meta-analysis for surrogacy: accelerated failure time models and semicompeting risks modeling.

Authors:  Debashis Ghosh; Jeremy M G Taylor; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Translating neoadjuvant therapy into survival benefits: one size does not fit all.

Authors:  Leticia De Mattos-Arruda; Ronglai Shen; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Javier Cortés
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 66.675

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.