Biometrics

Comparing Biomarkers as Principal Surrogate Endpoints

Ying Huang

Corresponding Author

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Division, Seattle, Washington 98109, U.S.A.

email: yhuang@fhcrc.orgSearch for more papers by this author
Peter B. Gilbert

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Division, Seattle, Washington 98109, U.S.A.

Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 22 April 2011
Citations: 42
Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.
Institutional Login
Loading institution options...

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, .

    • View the article PDF and any associated supplements and figures for a period of 48 hours.
    • Article can not be printed.
    • Article can not be downloaded.
    • Article can not be redistributed.
    • Unlimited viewing of the article PDF and any associated supplements and figures.
    • Article can not be printed.
    • Article can not be downloaded.
    • Article can not be redistributed.
    • Unlimited viewing of the article/chapter PDF and any associated supplements and figures.
    • Article/chapter can be printed.
    • Article/chapter can be downloaded.
    • Article/chapter can not be redistributed.

Abstract

Summary Recently a new definition of surrogate endpoint, the “principal surrogate,” was proposed based on causal associations between treatment effects on the biomarker and on the clinical endpoint. Despite its appealing interpretation, limited research has been conducted to evaluate principal surrogates, and existing methods focus on risk models that consider a single biomarker. How to compare principal surrogate value of biomarkers or general risk models that consider multiple biomarkers remains an open research question. We propose to characterize a marker or risk model’s principal surrogate value based on the distribution of risk difference between interventions. In addition, we propose a novel summary measure (the standardized total gain) that can be used to compare markers and to assess the incremental value of a new marker. We develop a semiparametric estimated‐likelihood method to estimate the joint surrogate value of multiple biomarkers. This method accommodates two‐phase sampling of biomarkers and is more widely applicable than existing nonparametric methods by incorporating continuous baseline covariates to predict the biomarker(s), and is more robust than existing parametric methods by leaving the error distribution of markers unspecified. The methodology is illustrated using a simulated example set and a real data set in the context of HIV vaccine trials.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.