Literature DB >> 26631934

Robust estimation of the proportion of treatment effect explained by surrogate marker information.

Layla Parast1, Mary M McDermott2, Lu Tian3.   

Abstract

In randomized treatment studies where the primary outcome requires long follow-up of patients and/or expensive or invasive obtainment procedures, the availability of a surrogate marker that could be used to estimate the treatment effect and could potentially be observed earlier than the primary outcome would allow researchers to make conclusions regarding the treatment effect with less required follow-up time and resources. The Prentice criterion for a valid surrogate marker requires that a test for treatment effect on the surrogate marker also be a valid test for treatment effect on the primary outcome of interest. Based on this criterion, methods have been developed to define and estimate the proportion of treatment effect on the primary outcome that is explained by the treatment effect on the surrogate marker. These methods aim to identify useful statistical surrogates that capture a large proportion of the treatment effect. However, current methods to estimate this proportion usually require restrictive model assumptions that may not hold in practice and thus may lead to biased estimates of this quantity. In this paper, we propose a nonparametric procedure to estimate the proportion of treatment effect on the primary outcome that is explained by the treatment effect on a potential surrogate marker and extend this procedure to a setting with multiple surrogate markers. We compare our approach with previously proposed model-based approaches and propose a variance estimation procedure based on a perturbation-resampling method. Simulation studies demonstrate that the procedure performs well in finite samples and outperforms model-based procedures when the specified models are not correct. We illustrate our proposed procedure using a data set from a randomized study investigating a group-mediated cognitive behavioral intervention for peripheral artery disease participants.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  kernel estimation; nonparametric; robust; surrogate marker; treatment effect

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26631934      PMCID: PMC4826843          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6820

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


  16 in total

1.  A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint.

Authors:  Z Li; M P Meredith; M S Hoseyni
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Principal stratification in causal inference.

Authors:  Constantine E Frangakis; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  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

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.  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

6.  Calibrating parametric subject-specific risk estimation.

Authors:  T Cai; L Tian; Hajime Uno; Scott D Solomon; L J Wei
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.445

7.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  J Wittes; E Lakatos; J Probstfield
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       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.  Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study.

Authors:  Jaana Lindström; Pirjo Ilanne-Parikka; Markku Peltonen; Sirkka Aunola; Johan G Eriksson; Katri Hemiö; Helena Hämäläinen; Pirjo Härkönen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Mauri Laakso; Anne Louheranta; Marjo Mannelin; Merja Paturi; Jouko Sundvall; Timo T Valle; Matti Uusitupa; Jaakko Tuomilehto
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-11-11       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Home-based walking exercise in peripheral artery disease: 12-month follow-up of the GOALS randomized trial.

Authors:  Mary M McDermott; Jack M Guralnik; Michael H Criqui; Luigi Ferrucci; Lihui Zhao; Kiang Liu; Kathryn Domanchuk; Bonnie Spring; Lu Tian; Melina Kibbe; Yihua Liao; Donald Lloyd Jones; W Jack Rejeski
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 5.501

View more
  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Evaluation of longitudinal surrogate markers.

Authors:  Denis Agniel; Layla Parast
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Estimation and Inference for the Mediation Proportion.

Authors:  Daniel Nevo; Xiaomei Liao; Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 1.588

5.  Estimation of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a high-dimensional surrogate.

Authors:  Ruixuan Rachel Zhou; Sihai Dave Zhao; Layla Parast
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Testing for heterogeneity in the utility of a surrogate marker.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 1.701

7.  Links between causal effects and causal association for surrogacy evaluation in a gaussian setting.

Authors:  Anna Conlon; Jeremy Taylor; Yun Li; Karla Diaz-Ordaz; Michael Elliott
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Quantifying the feasibility of shortening clinical trial duration using surrogate markers.

Authors:  Xuan Wang; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian; Florence Bourgeois; Layla Parast
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Evaluating multiple surrogate markers with censored data.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Robust methods to correct for measurement error when evaluating a surrogate marker.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tanya P Garcia; Ross L Prentice; Raymond J Carroll
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 1.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.