Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints
- PMID: 18809512
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.006
Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints
Abstract
Background: In recent years the use of surrogate end points (S) has become an interesting issue. In clinical trials, it is important to get treatment outcomes as early as possible. For this reason there is a need for surrogate endpoints (S) which are measured earlier than the true endpoint (T). However, before a surrogate endpoint can be used it must be validated. For a candidate surrogate endpoint, for example time to recurrence, the validation result may change dramatically between clinical trials. The aim of this study is to show how the validation criterion (R(2)(trial)) proposed by Buyse et al. are influenced by the magnitude of treatment effect with an application using real data.
Methods: The criterion R(2)(trial) proposed by Buyse et al. (2000) is applied to the four data sets from colon cancer clinical trials (C-01, C-02, C-03 and C-04). Each clinical trial is analyzed separately for treatment effect on survival (true endpoint) and recurrence free survival (surrogate endpoint) and this analysis is done also for each center in each trial. Results are used for standard validation analysis. The centers were grouped by the Wald statistic in 3 equal groups.
Results: Validation criteria R(2)(trial) were 0.641 95% CI (0.432-0.782), 0.223 95% CI (0.008-0.503), 0.761 95% CI (0.550-0.872) and 0.560 95% CI (0.404-0.687) for C-01, C-02, C-03 and C-04 respectively. The R(2)(trial) criteria changed by the Wald statistics observed for the centers used in the validation process. Higher the Wald statistic groups are higher the R(2)(trial) values observed.
Conclusion: The recurrence free survival is not a good surrogate for overall survival in clinical trials with non significant treatment effects and moderate for significant treatment effects. This shows that the level of significance of treatment effect should be taken into account in validation process of surrogate endpoints.
Similar articles
-
Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials.Stat Methods Med Res. 2008 Oct;17(5):505-14. doi: 10.1177/0962280207081861. Epub 2008 Feb 19. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008. PMID: 18285436
-
[Validation of surrogate endpoints in digestive oncology].Bull Cancer. 2009 May;96(5):591-5. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2009.0858. Epub 2009 May 7. Bull Cancer. 2009. PMID: 19423485 French.
-
Simulation studies of surrogate endpoint validation using single trial and multitrial statistical approaches.J Rheumatol. 2007 Mar;34(3):616-9. J Rheumatol. 2007. PMID: 17343308
-
Use of meta-analysis for the validation of surrogate endpoints and biomarkers in cancer trials.Cancer J. 2009 Sep-Oct;15(5):421-5. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e3181b9c602. Cancer J. 2009. PMID: 19826362 Review.
-
A unified framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in mental-health clinical trials.Stat Methods Med Res. 2010 Jun;19(3):205-36. doi: 10.1177/0962280209105015. Epub 2009 Jul 16. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010. PMID: 19608602 Review.
Cited by
-
Center-Within-Trial Versus Trial-Level Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints.Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014 Oct 1;78:1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2014.03.011. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014. PMID: 25061255 Free PMC article.
-
Identification of surrogate endpoints in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone.BMC Cancer. 2015 Nov 24;15:930. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1816-6. BMC Cancer. 2015. PMID: 26603423 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical