Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Modified Risk Set Approach to Biomarker Evaluation Studies

  • Published:
Statistics in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is tremendous scientific and medical interest in the use of biomarkers to better facilitate medical decision making. In this article, we present a simple framework for assessing the predictive ability of a biomarker. The methodology requires use of techniques from a subfield of survival analysis termed semi-competing risks; results are presented to make the article self-contained. As we show in the article, one natural interpretation of semi-competing risks model is in terms of modifying the classical risk set approach to survival analysis that is more germane to medical decision making. A crucial parameter for evaluating biomarkers is the predictive hazard ratio, which is different from the usual hazard ratio from Cox regression models for right-censored data. This quantity will be defined; its estimation, inference, and adjustment for covariates will be discussed. Aspects of causal inference related to these procedures will also be described. The methodology is illustrated with an evaluation of serum albumin in terms of predicting death in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Srivastava S (2002) Markers for early detection of cancer: statistical guidelines for nested case control studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biomarkers Working Group (2001) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89–95

  3. Clayton DG (1978) A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 65:141–151

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Day R, Bryant J, Lefkopolou M (1997) Adaptation of bivariate frailty models for prediction, with application to biological markers as prognostic indicators. Biometrika 84:45–56

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1986) Bootstrap method for standard errors, confidence intervals and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1:54–77

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Fine JP, Jiang H, Chappell R (2001) On semi-competing risks data. Biometrika 88:907–919

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Gail M (1981) Evaluating serial cancer marker studies in patients at risk of recurrent disease. Biometrics 37:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM (2005) On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 6:227–239

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghosh D (2006) Semiparametric inferences for association with semi-competing risks data. Stat Med 25:2059–2070

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghosh D (2009) On assessing surrogacy in a single-trial setting using a semi-competing risks paradigm. Biometrics 65:521–529

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghosh D, Taylor JM, Sargent DJ (2012) Meta-analysis for surrogacy: accelerated failure time modelling and semi-competing risks (with discussion). Biometrics 68:226–247

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS (2000) Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 56:337–344

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Heagerty PJ, Zheng Y (2005) Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics 61:92–105

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Jin Z, Ying Z, Wei LJ (2001) A simple resampling method by perturbing the minimand. Biometrika 88:381–390

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38:963–974

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Murtaugh PA, Dickson ER, Van Dam GM, Malinchoc M, Grambsch PM, Langworthy AL, Gips CH (1994) Primary biliary cirrhosis: prediction of short-term survival based on repeated patient visits. Hepatology 20:126–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oakes D (1982) A model for association in bivariate survival data. J R Stat Soc B 44:414–422

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Oakes D (1986) Semiparametric inference in a model for association in bivariate survival data. Biometrika 73:353–361

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Potter JD, Thompson ML, Thornquist M, Winget M, Yasui Y (2001) Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1054–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P (2006) Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 159:882–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Saha P, Heagerty PJ (2010) Time-dependent predictive accuracy in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 66:999–1011

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Zheng Y, Cai T, Jin Y, Feng Z (2012) Evaluating prognostic accuracy of biomarkers under competing risks. Biometrics 68:388–396

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NIH R01-CA129102. The author thanks the Associate Editor and one referee, whose comments substantially improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Debashis Ghosh

Authors
  1. Debashis Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debashis Ghosh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghosh, D. A Modified Risk Set Approach to Biomarker Evaluation Studies. Stat Biosci 8, 395–406 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-016-9166-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-016-9166-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation