Advertisement

Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome

  • Layla ParastEmail author
  • Lu Tian
  • Tianxi Cai
Article

Abstract

Assessing the potential of surrogate markers and surrogate outcomes for replacing a long term outcome is an active area of research. The interest in this topic is partly motivated by increasing pressure from stakeholders to shorten the time required to evaluate the safety and/or efficacy of a treatment or intervention such that treatments deemed safe and effective can be made available to those in need more quickly. Most existing methods in surrogacy evaluation either require strict model assumptions or that primary outcome and surrogate outcome information is available for all study participants. In this paper, we focus on a setting where the primary outcome is subject to censoring and the aim is to quantify the surrogacy of an intermediate outcome, which is also subject to censoring. We define the surrogacy as the proportion of treatment effect on the primary outcome that is explained by the intermediate surrogate outcome information and propose two robust methods to estimate this quantity. We propose both a nonparametric approach that uses a kernel smoothed Nelson–Aalen estimator of conditional survival, and a semiparametric method that derives conditional survival estimates from a landmark Cox proportional hazards model. Simulation studies demonstrate that both approaches perform well in finite samples. Our methodological development is motivated by our interest in investigating the use of a composite cardiovascular endpoint as a surrogate outcome in a randomized study of the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on survival. We apply the proposed methods to quantify the surrogacy of this potential surrogate outcome for the primary outcome, time to death.

Keywords

Surrogate Survival analysis Nonparametric Kernel 

Notes

References

  1. Alberti KGMM, Zimmet P, Shaw J (2006) Metabolic syndrome? A new world-wide definition. A consensus statement from the international diabetes federation. Diabet Med 23(5):469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ALLHAT (2000) Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs chlorthalidone: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (allhat). Jama 283:1967–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broglio KR, Berry DA (2009) Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1642–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D (2001) Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat) 50(4):405–422MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Buyse M, Molenberghs G (1998) Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54(3):1014–1029CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Carroll K, Michiels S, Sargent DJ, Miller LL, Elfring GL, Pignon JP, Piedbois P (2007) Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5218–5224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron DW, Heath-Chiozzi M, Danner S, Cohen C, Kravcik S, Maurath C, Sun E, Henry D, Rode R, Potthoff A et al (1998) Randomised placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in advanced HIV-1 disease. The Lancet 351(9102):543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi S, Lagakos SW, Schooley RT, Volberding PA (1993) Cd4+ lymphocytes are an incomplete surrogate marker for clinical progression in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection taking zidovudine. Ann Intern Med 118(9):674–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conlon AS, Taylor JM, Elliott MR (2014) Surrogacy assessment using principal stratification when surrogate and outcome measures are multivariate normal. Biostatistics 15(2):266–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eastwood JA, Doering LV (2005) Gender differences in coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs 20(5):340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egger M, Hirschel B, Francioli P, Sudre P, Wirz M, Flepp M, Rickenbach M, Malinverni R, Vernazza P, Battegay M (1997) Impact of new antiretroviral combination therapies in HIV infected patients in switzerland: prospective multicentre study. Bmj 315(7117):1194–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott MR, Conlon AS, Li Y, Kaciroti N, Taylor JM (2015) Surrogacy marker paradox measures in meta-analytic settings. Biostatistics 16(2):400–412MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FDA (2008) Guidance for industry diabetes mellitus: developing drugs and therapeutic biologics for treatment and prevention. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm071624.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2019
  14. Fleming TR, Prentice RL, Pepe MS, Glidden D (1994) Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and aids research. Stat Med 13(9):955–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB (2002) Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58(1):21–29MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A (1992) Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 11(2):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frontoni S, Di Bartolo P, Avogaro A, Bosi E, Paolisso G, Ceriello A (2013) Glucose variability: an emerging target for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 102(2):86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabriel EE, Sachs MC, Gilbert PB (2015) Comparing and combining biomarkers as principle surrogates for time-to-event clinical endpoints. Stat Med 34(3):381–395MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghosh D (2008) Semiparametric inference for surrogate endpoints with bivariate censored data. Biometrics 64(1):149–156MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghosh D (2009) On assessing surrogacy in a single trial setting using a semicompeting risks paradigm. Biometrics 65(2):521–529MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert PB, Hudgens MG (2008) Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 64(4):1146–1154MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammer S, Katzenstein D, Hughes M, Gundacker H, Schooley R, Haubrich R, Henry W, Lederman M, Phair J, Niu M et al (1996) A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in HIV-infected adults with CD4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med 335(15):1081–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang Y, Gilbert PB (2011) Comparing biomarkers as principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 67(4):1442–1451MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes MD, Daniels MJ, Fischl MA, Kim S, Schooley RT (1998) Cd4 cell count as a surrogate endpoint in HIV clinical trials: a meta-analysis of studies of the aids clinical trials group. Aids 12(14):1823–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inker LA, Levey AS, Pandya K, Stoycheff N, Okparavero A, Greene T, Collaboration CKDE et al (2014) Early change in proteinuria as a surrogate end point for kidney disease progression: an individual patient meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 64(1):74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan R, Gold L, Cummins C, Hyde C (2002) Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy. Bmj 324(7340):757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ledergerber B, Egger M, Opravil M, Telenti A, Hirschel B, Battegay M, Vernazza P, Sudre P, Flepp M, Furrer H et al (1999) Clinical progression and virological failure on highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 patients: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet 353(9156):863–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin D, Fischl MA, Schoenfeld D (1993) Evaluating the role of cd4-lymphocyte counts as surrogate endpoints in human immunodeficiency virus clinical trials. Stat Med 12(9):835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin D, Fleming T, De Gruttola V et al (1997) Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med 16(13):1515–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorenzo C, Williams K, Stern MP, Haffner SM (2003) The metabolic syndrome as predictor of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 26(11):3153–3159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maas A, Appelman Y (2010) Gender differences in coronary heart disease. Neth Heart J 18(12):598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NHLBI (2008) NHLBI data repository: prevention of events with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy (peace). https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/peace/. Accessed 9 Apr 2019
  33. Parast L, Cai T (2013) Landmark risk prediction of residual life for breast cancer survival. Stat Med 32(20):3459–3471.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5776 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parast L, McDermott MM, Tian L (2016) Robust estimation of the proportion of treatment effect explained by surrogate marker information. Stat Med 35(10):1637–1653MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parast L, Cai T, Tian L (2017) Evaluating surrogate marker information using censored data. Stat Med 36(11):1767–1782MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. PEACE (2004) Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004(351):2058–2068Google Scholar
  37. Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee IM, Gordon D, Gaziano JM, Manson JE, Hennekens CH, Buring JE (2005) A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med 352(13):1293–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robins JM, Greenland S (1992) Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3(2):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Royston P, Parmar MK (2011) The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med 30(19):2409–2421MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Royston P, Parmar MK (2013) Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1):152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stevens LA, Greene T, Levey AS (2006) Surrogate end points for clinical trials of kidney disease progression. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1(4):874–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tian L, Zhao L, Wei L (2013) Predicting the restricted mean event time with the subject’s baseline covariates in survival analysis. Biostatistics 15(2):222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van der Weele TJ (2013) Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates. Biometrics 69(3):561–565MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Verweij J, Casali PG, Zalcberg J, LeCesne A, Reichardt P, Blay JY, Issels R, van Oosterom A, Hogendoorn PC, Van Glabbeke M et al (2004) Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial. The Lancet 364(9440):1127–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Y, Taylor JM (2002) A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 58(4):803–812MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J (1989) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med 8(4):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistics GroupRAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Data ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations