Literature DB >> 23264679

Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation.

Stuart G Baker1, Barnett S Kramer.   

Abstract

Surrogate endpoints offer the hope of smaller or shorter cancer trials. It is, however, important to realize they come at the cost of an unverifiable extrapolation that could lead to misleading conclusions. With cancer prevention, the focus is on hypothesis testing in small surrogate endpoint trials before deciding whether to proceed to a large prevention trial. However, it is not generally appreciated that a small surrogate endpoint trial is highly sensitive to a deviation from the key Prentice criterion needed for the hypothesis-testing extrapolation. With cancer treatment, the focus is on estimation using historical trials with both surrogate and true endpoints to predict treatment effect based on the surrogate endpoint in a new trial. Successively leaving out one historical trial and computing the predicted treatment effect in the left-out trial yields a standard error multiplier that summarizes the increased uncertainty in estimation extrapolation. If this increased uncertainty is acceptable, three additional extrapolation issues (biological mechanism, treatment following observation of the surrogate endpoint, and side effects following observation of the surrogate endpoint) need to be considered. In summary, when using surrogate endpoint analyses, an appreciation of the problems of extrapolation is crucial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23264679      PMCID: PMC3611854          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  36 in total

1.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  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

3.  Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Daniel J Sargent; Marc Buyse; Tomasz Burzykowski
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-08-13       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies.

Authors:  S G Baker; B S Kramer
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  2001-11

5.  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

6.  Analysing survival in the presence of an auxiliary variable.

Authors:  D M Finkelstein; D A Schoenfeld
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-09-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  The hazards of hazard ratios.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.

Authors:  D J Malenka; J A Baron; S Johansen; J W Wahrenberger; J M Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  A randomized phase IIb trial of pulmicort turbuhaler (budesonide) in people with dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium.

Authors:  Stephen Lam; Jean C leRiche; Annette McWilliams; Calum Macaulay; Yulia Dyachkova; Eva Szabo; John Mayo; Robert Schellenberg; Andy Coldman; Ernest Hawk; Adi Gazdar
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Suitable trial designs and cohorts for preventive breast cancer agents.

Authors:  Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Transfusion Decision Making in Pediatric Critical Illness.

Authors:  Chris Markham; Sara Small; Peter Hovmand; Allan Doctor
Journal:  Pediatr Clin North Am       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.278

3.  Five criteria for using a surrogate endpoint to predict treatment effect based on data from multiple previous trials.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 5.  Cancer chemoprevention: Much has been done, but there is still much to do. State of the art and possible new approaches.

Authors:  Davide Serrano; Matteo Lazzeroni; Bernardo Bonanni
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 6.  Clinical Benefit Scales and Trial Design: Some Statistical Issues.

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Carmen J Allegra; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 11.816

7.  Causal inference, probability theory, and graphical insights.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Use of surrogate outcomes in US FDA drug approvals, 2003-2012: a survey.

Authors:  Tsung Yu; Yea-Jen Hsu; Kevin M Fain; Cynthia M Boyd; Janet T Holbrook; Milo A Puhan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.