Calibrating Variations in Biomarker Measures for Improving Prediction with Time-to-event Outcomes

  • Cheng Zheng
  • Yingye ZhengEmail author


Novel biologic markers have been used to predict clinical outcomes of many diseases. One specific feature of biomarkers is that they often are measured with variations due to factors such as sample preparation and specific laboratory process. Statistical methods have been proposed to characterize the effects of underlying error-free quantity in association with an outcome, yet the impact of measurement errors in terms of prediction has not been well studied. We focus in this manuscript on using biomarkers for predicting an individual’s future risk for survival outcome. In the setting where replicates of error-prone biomarkers are available in a ‘training’ population and risk projection is applied to individuals in a ‘prediction’ population, we propose two-step measurement-error-corrected estimators of absolute risks. We conducted numerical studies to evaluate the predictive performance of the proposed and routine approaches under various assumptions about the measurement error distributions to pinpoint situations when correction of measurement errors might be necessary. We studied the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators. We applied the estimators to a liver cancer biomarker study to predict risk of liver cancer incidence using age and a novel biomarker, \(\alpha \)-Fetoprotein.


Biomarker Corrected score Measurement error Regression calibration Risk prediction 



The work is supported by Grants U01-CA86368, P01-CA053996, and R01-GM085047 awarded by the National Institutes of Health.


  1. 1.
    Cai T, Tian L, Solomon SD, Wei L (2008) Predicting future responses based on possibly mis-specified working models. Biometrika 95(1):75–92MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll RJ, Delaigle A, Hall P (2009) Nonparametric prediction in measurement error models. J Am Stat Assoc 104(487):993–1014MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA, Crainiceanu CM (2010) Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng S, Wei L, Ying Z (1995) Analysis of transformation models with censored data. Biometrika 82(4):835–845MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durand X, Moutereau S, Xylinas E, De La Taille A (2011) Progensa pca3 test for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 11(2):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS (2000) Time-dependent roc curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 56(2):337–344CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu C, Lin D (2002) Cox regression with covariate measurement error. Scand J Stat 29:637–656MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang Y, Wang C (2000) Cox regression with accurate covariates unascertainable: a nonparametric-correction approach. J Am Stat Assoc 95(452):1209–1219MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang Y, Wang C (2001) Consistent functional methods for logistic regression with errors in covariates. J Am Stat Assoc 96(456):1469–1482MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loeb S, Partin AW (2011) Review of the literature: Pca3 for prostate cancer risk assessment and prognostication. Rev Urol 13(4):e191Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura T (1992) Proportional hazards model with covariates subject to measurement error. Biometrics 48:829–838MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27(2):157–172MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pollard D (1982) Empirical processes: theory and applications. In: NSF-CMBS conference series in probability and statisticsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prentice R (1982) Covariate measurement errors and parameter estimation in a failure time regression model. Biometrika 69(2):331–342MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tworoger SS, Hankinson SE (2006) Use of biomarkers in epidemiologic studies: minimizing the influence of measurement error in the study design and analysis. Cancer Causes Control 17(7):889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uno H, Cai T, Tian L, Wei L (2007) Evaluating prediction rules for t-year survivors with censored regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 102(478):527–537MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uno H, Cai T, Tian L, Wei L (2011) Graphical procedures for evaluating overall and subject-specific incremental values from new predictors with censored event time data. Biometrics 67(4):1389–1396MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang C, Hsu L, Feng Z, Prentice RL (1997) Regression calibration in failure time regression. Biometrics 53:131–145MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xie SX, Wang C, Prentice RL (2001) A risk set calibration method for failure time regression by using a covariate reliability sample. J R Stat Soc Ser B 63(4):855–870MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zheng Y, Cai T, Feng Z (2006) Application of the time-dependent ROC curves for prognostic accuracy with multiple biomarkers. Biometrics 62(1):279–287MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zheng Y, Cai T, Pepe MS (2013) Adopting nested case-control quota sampling designs for the evaluation of risk markers. Lifetime Data Anal 19(4):568–588MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhou H, Pepe M (1995) Auxiliary covariate data in failure time regression. Biometrika 82(1):139–149MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Chinese Statistical Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joseph J. Zilber School of Public HealthUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Biostatistics ProgramFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations