Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jul;12(3):478-92.
doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq082. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials

Affiliations

Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials

Yun Li et al. Biostatistics. 2011 Jul.

Abstract

When the true end points (T) are difficult or costly to measure, surrogate markers (S) are often collected in clinical trials to help predict the effect of the treatment (Z). There is great interest in understanding the relationship among S, T, and Z. A principal stratification (PS) framework has been proposed by Frangakis and Rubin (2002) to study their causal associations. In this paper, we extend the framework to a multiple trial setting and propose a Bayesian hierarchical PS model to assess surrogacy. We apply the method to data from a large collection of colon cancer trials in which S and T are binary. We obtain the trial-specific causal measures among S, T, and Z, as well as their overall population-level counterparts that are invariant across trials. The method allows for information sharing across trials and reduces the nonidentifiability problem. We examine the frequentist properties of our model estimates and the impact of the monotonicity assumption using simulations. We also illustrate the challenges in evaluating surrogacy in the counterfactual framework that result from nonidentifiability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Population-level (solid lines) and trial-specific (dashed lines) surrogacy measures: NDE and NAE for ACCENT data. Left panel: with monotonicity; and Right panel: without monotonicity.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Population-level (solid lines) and trial-specific (dashed lines) surrogacy measures: AP and SAP for ACCENT data. Left panel: with monotonicity; and Right panel: without monotonicity.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Prior and posterior distributions on population-level counterfactual probabilities. Dashed lines for the prior distributions and solid lines for the posterior distributions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alonso A, Molenberghs G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics. 2007;1:180–186. - PubMed
    1. Alonso A, Molenberghs G. Evaluating time to cancer recurrence as a surrogate marker for survival from an information theory perspective. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2008;17:497–504. - PubMed
    1. Baker SG. Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2008;17:505–514. - PubMed
    1. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54:1014–1029. - PubMed
    1. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2000;1:49–67. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances