IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/lifeda/v26y2020i2d10.1007_s10985-019-09473-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome

Author

Listed:
  • Layla Parast

    (RAND Corporation)

  • Lu Tian

    (Stanford University)

  • Tianxi Cai

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Layla Parast & Lu Tian & Tianxi Cai, 2020. "Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 245-265, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:lifeda:v:26:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10985-019-09473-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10985-019-09473-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10985-019-09473-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10985-019-09473-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter B. Gilbert & Michael G. Hudgens, 2008. "Evaluating Candidate Principal Surrogate Endpoints," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1146-1154, December.
    2. Tomasz Burzykowski & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Buyse & Helena Geys & Didier Renard, 2001. "Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(4), pages 405-422.
    3. Yue Wang & Jeremy M. G. Taylor, 2002. "A Measure of the Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by a Surrogate Marker," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 803-812, December.
    4. Constantine E. Frangakis & Donald B. Rubin, 2002. "Principal Stratification in Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 21-29, March.
    5. Debashis Ghosh, 2008. "Semiparametric Inference for Surrogate Endpoints with Bivariate Censored Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 149-156, March.
    6. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert, 2011. "Comparing Biomarkers as Principal Surrogate Endpoints," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1442-1451, December.
    7. Debashis Ghosh, 2009. "On Assessing Surrogacy in a Single Trial Setting Using a Semicompeting Risks Paradigm," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 521-529, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yen‐Tsung Huang, 2021. "Rejoinder to “Causal mediation of semicompeting risks”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1170-1174, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Debashis Ghosh, 2009. "On Assessing Surrogacy in a Single Trial Setting Using a Semicompeting Risks Paradigm," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 521-529, June.
    2. Layla Parast & Tianxi Cai & Lu Tian, 2023. "Testing for heterogeneity in the utility of a surrogate marker," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 799-810, June.
    3. Debashis Ghosh & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Daniel J. Sargent, 2012. "Meta-analysis for Surrogacy: Accelerated Failure Time Models and Semicompeting Risks Modeling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 226-232, March.
    4. Ying Huang & Shibasish Dasgupta, 2019. "Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 11(3), pages 504-523, December.
    5. Gilbert Peter B. & Blette Bryan S. & Hudgens Michael G. & Shepherd Bryan E., 2020. "Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 54-69, January.
    6. Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2013. "Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 561-565, September.
    7. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert & Julian Wolfson, 2013. "Design and Estimation for Evaluating Principal Surrogate Markers in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 301-309, June.
    8. John O'Quigley & Philippe Flandre, 2012. "Discussion by O'Quigley and Flandre," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 242-244, March.
    9. Zhichao Jiang & Shu Yang & Peng Ding, 2022. "Multiply robust estimation of causal effects under principal ignorability," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1423-1445, September.
    10. Gilbert Peter B. & Blette Bryan S. & Hudgens Michael G. & Shepherd Bryan E., 2020. "Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 54-69, January.
    11. Ying Huang, 2018. "Evaluating principal surrogate markers in vaccine trials in the presence of multiphase sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 27-39, March.
    12. Zhichao Jiang & Peng Ding & Zhi Geng, 2016. "Principal causal effect identification and surrogate end point evaluation by multiple trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(4), pages 829-848, September.
    13. Rui Zhuang & Ying Qing Chen, 2020. "Measuring Surrogacy in Clinical Research," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(3), pages 295-323, December.
    14. Michael R. Elliott & Anna Conlon & Yun Li, 2013. "Discussion on “Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 565-569, September.
    15. Ghosh, Debashis, 2012. "A causal framework for surrogate endpoints with semi-competing risks data," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(11), pages 1898-1902.
    16. Erin E. Gabriel & Michael C. Sachs & Dean A. Follmann & Therese M‐L. Andersson, 2020. "A unified evaluation of differential vaccine efficacy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1053-1063, December.
    17. Debashis Ghosh, 2008. "Semiparametric Inference for Surrogate Endpoints with Bivariate Censored Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 149-156, March.
    18. Gilbert Peter B. & Huang Ying & Gabriel Erin E. & Chan Ivan S.F., 2015. "Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation: Principal Stratification Criteria and the Prentice Definition," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 157-175, September.
    19. Bartolucci, Francesco & Grilli, Leonardo, 2011. "Modeling Partial Compliance Through Copulas in a Principal Stratification Framework," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 469-479.
    20. Emily K. Roberts & Michael R. Elliott & Jeremy M. G. Taylor, 2023. "Solutions for surrogacy validation with longitudinal outcomes for a gene therapy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 1840-1852, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:lifeda:v:26:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10985-019-09473-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.