Evaluation Methods for T-association of a Surrogate Endpoint
Hung, J.-Y.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Su, P.-F.; Shyr, Y.
Show abstract
A surrogate endpoint is a biomarker that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and is used as a substitute for a direct measure of clinical benefit under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Accelerated Approval pathway. According to FDA guidelines, a valid surrogate endpoint must meet two associations: I-association (the association between the surrogate and true endpoints, such as disease response and overall survival) and T-association (the association between treatment effects on both endpoints, such as odds ratio and hazard ratio). I-association is commonly evaluated, but T-association is often overlooked due to the lack of appropriate statistical methods. Failure to satisfy T-association precludes a biomarker from supporting accelerated approval. To address this gap, we propose a new method to rigorously assess T-association in accordance with FDA guidelines. This method assumes that treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoints follow a bivariate normal distribution, accounting for both within-study and between-study variances. The key evaluation metric is the correlation coefficient, which quantifies the relationship between treatment effects on both endpoints. Model parameters, including this correlation, are estimated using maximum likelihood, restricted maximum likelihood, and a Bayesian approach. We demonstrate the method using both simulated and real-world data. The method will serve as the statistical foundation that aligns with FDA guidelines and supports future accelerated approvals. The R package to implement the proposed method is available at https://github.com/jybelindahung/T-association.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 95%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 94%
- Comparison of Bayesian networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 95%
- Treatment recommendations based on Network Meta-Analysis: rules for risk-averse decision-makers 93%
- Revisiting and expanding the meta-analysis of variation: The log coefficient of variation ratio, lnCVR 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Data-driven Prior Elicitation for Bayes Factors in Cox Regression for Nine Subfields in Biomedicine 94%
- Using the Bayesian credible subgroups method to identify populations benefiting from treatment: An application to the Look AHEAD trial 93%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Learning from local to global - an efficient distributed algorithm for modeling time-to-event data 94%
- A Web-based Tool for Automatically linking Clinical Trials to their Publications 91%
- A Bayesian Framework for Estimating the Risk Ratio of Hospitalization for People with Comorbidity Infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Virus 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.