Literature DB >> 26254442

Statistical controversies in clinical research: an initial evaluation of a surrogate end point using a single randomized clinical trial and the Prentice criteria.

G Heller1.   

Abstract

Surrogate end point research has grown in recent years with the increasing development and usage of biomarkers in clinical research. Surrogacy analysis is derived through randomized clinical trial data and it is carried out at the individual level and at the trial level. A common surrogate analysis at the individual level is the application of the Prentice criteria. An approach for the evaluation of the Prentice criteria is discussed, with a focus on its most difficult component, the determination of whether the treatment effect is captured by the surrogate. An interpretation of this criterion is illustrated using data from a randomized clinical trial in prostate cancer.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prentice criteria; equivalence test; randomized clinical trial; surrogate end point

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26254442      PMCID: PMC4692987          DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.

Authors:  Ariel Alonso; Geert Molenberghs; Tomasz Burzykowski; Didier Renard; Helena Geys; Ziv Shkedy; Fabián Tibaldi; José Cortiñas Abrahantes; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process.

Authors:  Thomas R Fleming
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen declines for surrogacy in patients treated on SWOG 99-16.

Authors:  Daniel P Petrylak; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Caroline S Jiang; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain.

Authors:  Yongming Qu; Michael Case
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Quantification of the prentice criteria for surrogate endpoints.

Authors:  John O'Quigley; Philippe Flandre
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.571

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

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

8.  Circulating tumor cell biomarker panel as an individual-level surrogate for survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Glenn Heller; Arturo Molina; Gerhardt Attard; Daniel C Danila; Xiaoyu Jia; Weimin Peng; Shahneen K Sandhu; David Olmos; Ruth Riisnaes; Robert McCormack; Tomasz Burzykowski; Thian Kheoh; Martin Fleisher; Marc Buyse; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Circulating tumour cells as prognostic markers in progressive, castration-resistant prostate cancer: a reanalysis of IMMC38 trial data.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Xiaoyu Jia; Johann S de Bono; Martin Fleisher; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan; Glenn Heller
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 10.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Qian Shi; Daniel J Sargent
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  5 in total

1.  Interpretation of lung cancer study outcomes.

Authors:  Diego Cortinovis; Marida Abbate; Paolo Bidoli; Davide Pelizzoni; Stefania Canova
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Clinical study protocol for a low-interventional study in intermediate age-related macular degeneration developing novel clinical endpoints for interventional clinical trials with a regulatory and patient access intention-MACUSTAR.

Authors:  Jan H Terheyden; Frank G Holz; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Anna Lüning; Matthias Schmid; Gary S Rubin; Hannah Dunbar; Adnan Tufail; David P Crabb; Alison Binns; Clara I Sánchez; Carel Hoyng; Philippe Margaron; Nadia Zakaria; Mary Durbin; Ulrich Luhmann; Parisa Zamiri; José Cunha-Vaz; Cecília Martinho; Sergio Leal; Robert P Finger
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Radiation dose-response (a Bayesian model) in the radiotherapy of the localized prostatic adenocarcinoma: the reliability of PSA slope changes as a response surrogate endpoint.

Authors:  Reza Ali Mohammadpour; Jamshid Yazdani-Charati; SZahra Faghani; Ahad Alizadeh; Mohammadreza Barzegartahamtan
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 4.  An Overview of Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs.

Authors:  Pedro A Torres-Saavedra; Kathryn A Winter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  A systematic review of meta-analyses assessing the validity of tumour response endpoints as surrogates for progression-free or overall survival in cancer.

Authors:  Katy Cooper; Paul Tappenden; Anna Cantrell; Kate Ennis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.