Literature DB >> 21517791

Comparing biomarkers as principal surrogate endpoints.

Ying Huang1, Peter B Gilbert.   

Abstract

Recently a new definition of surrogate endpoint, the "principal surrogate," was proposed based on causal associations between treatment effects on the biomarker and on the clinical endpoint. Despite its appealing interpretation, limited research has been conducted to evaluate principal surrogates, and existing methods focus on risk models that consider a single biomarker. How to compare principal surrogate value of biomarkers or general risk models that consider multiple biomarkers remains an open research question. We propose to characterize a marker or risk model's principal surrogate value based on the distribution of risk difference between interventions. In addition, we propose a novel summary measure (the standardized total gain) that can be used to compare markers and to assess the incremental value of a new marker. We develop a semiparametric estimated-likelihood method to estimate the joint surrogate value of multiple biomarkers. This method accommodates two-phase sampling of biomarkers and is more widely applicable than existing nonparametric methods by incorporating continuous baseline covariates to predict the biomarker(s), and is more robust than existing parametric methods by leaving the error distribution of markers unspecified. The methodology is illustrated using a simulated example set and a real data set in the context of HIV vaccine trials.
© 2011, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21517791      PMCID: PMC3163011          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01603.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  23 in total

1.  Principal stratification in causal inference.

Authors:  Constantine E Frangakis; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-03       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.  Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects.

Authors:  J M Robins; S Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Counterfactual links to the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  Jeremy M G Taylor; Yue Wang; Rodolphe Thiébaut
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  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

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

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

9.  A parametric ROC model-based approach for evaluating the predictiveness of continuous markers in case-control studies.

Authors:  Y Huang; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Statistical identifiability and the surrogate endpoint problem, with application to vaccine trials.

Authors:  Julian Wolfson; Peter Gilbert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  31 in total

1.  Augmented trial designs for evaluation of principal surrogates.

Authors:  Erin E Gabriel; Dean Follmann
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Evaluating surrogate marker information using censored data.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Evaluating principal surrogate endpoints with time-to-event data accounting for time-varying treatment efficacy.

Authors:  Erin E Gabriel; Peter B Gilbert
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Inference on treatment effect modification by biomarker response in a three-phase sampling design.

Authors:  Michal Juraska; Ying Huang; Peter B Gilbert
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Identification of the optimal treatment regimen in the presence of missing covariates.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A method to address between-subject heterogeneity for identification of principal surrogate markers in repeated low-dose challenge HIV vaccine studies.

Authors:  Andrew J Spieker; Ying Huang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Evaluation and comparison of predictive individual-level general surrogates.

Authors:  Erin E Gabriel; Michael C Sachs; M Elizabeth Halloran
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

8.  Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation: Principal Stratification Criteria and the Prentice Definition.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; Erin E Gabriel; Ying Huang; Ivan S F Chan
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2015-02-01

9.  Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  Modeling HIV vaccine trials of the future.

Authors:  Peter B Gilbert; Ying Huang; Holly E Janes
Journal:  Curr Opin HIV AIDS       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.