Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

A Bayesian prediction model between a biomarker and the clinical endpoint for dichotomous variables

Authors: Zhiwei Jiang, Yang Song, Qiong Shou, Jielai Xia, William Wang

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Early biomarkers are helpful for predicting clinical endpoints and for evaluating efficacy in clinical trials even if the biomarker cannot replace clinical outcome as a surrogate. The building and evaluation of an association model between biomarkers and clinical outcomes are two equally important concerns regarding the prediction of clinical outcome. This paper is to address both issues in a Bayesian framework.

Methods

A Bayesian meta-analytic approach is proposed to build a prediction model between the biomarker and clinical endpoint for dichotomous variables. Compared with other Bayesian methods, the proposed model only requires trial-level summary data of historical trials in model building. By using extensive simulations, we evaluate the link function and the application condition of the proposed Bayesian model under scenario (i) equal positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and (ii) higher NPV and lower PPV. In the simulations, the patient-level data is generated to evaluate the meta-analytic model. PPV and NPV are employed to describe the patient-level relationship between the biomarker and the clinical outcome. The minimum number of historical trials to be included in building the model is also considered.

Results

It is seen from the simulations that the logit link function performs better than the odds and cloglog functions under both scenarios. PPV/NPV ≥0.5 for equal PPV and NPV, and PPV + NPV ≥1 for higher NPV and lower PPV are proposed in order to predict clinical outcome accurately and precisely when the proposed model is considered. Twenty historical trials are required to be included in model building when PPV and NPV are equal. For unequal PPV and NPV, the minimum number of historical trials for model building is proposed to be five. A hypothetical example shows an application of the proposed model in global drug development.

Conclusions

The proposed Bayesian model is able to predict well the clinical endpoint from the observed biomarker data for dichotomous variables as long as the conditions are satisfied. It could be applied in drug development. But the practical problems in applications have to be studied in further research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Boissel JP, Collet JP, Moleur P, Haugh M: Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992, 43: 235-244. 10.1007/BF02333016.CrossRefPubMed Boissel JP, Collet JP, Moleur P, Haugh M: Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992, 43: 235-244. 10.1007/BF02333016.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference De Gruttola V, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, Gail MH, Prentice R, Wittes J, Zeger SL: Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoint in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workgroup. Control Clin Trials. 2001, 22: 485-502. 10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00153-2.CrossRefPubMed De Gruttola V, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, Gail MH, Prentice R, Wittes J, Zeger SL: Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoint in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workgroup. Control Clin Trials. 2001, 22: 485-502. 10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00153-2.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Chuang-Stein C, DeMasi R: Surrogate endpoints in AIDS drug development: current status. Drug Inform J. 1998, 32: 439-448.CrossRef Chuang-Stein C, DeMasi R: Surrogate endpoints in AIDS drug development: current status. Drug Inform J. 1998, 32: 439-448.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Biomarkers Definitions Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001, 69: 89-95.CrossRef Biomarkers Definitions Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001, 69: 89-95.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services: FDA: The Nation’s Premier Consumer Health Protection Agency. 2004, Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration US Department of Health and Human Services: FDA: The Nation’s Premier Consumer Health Protection Agency. 2004, Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration
6.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance For Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs-Designation, Development, And Application Review. 2004, Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration US Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance For Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs-Designation, Development, And Application Review. 2004, Washington DC: US Food and Drug Administration
7.
go back to reference Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational bias. Stat Med. 1989, 8: 431-440. 10.1002/sim.4780080407.CrossRefPubMed Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational bias. Stat Med. 1989, 8: 431-440. 10.1002/sim.4780080407.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A: Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992, 11: 167-178. 10.1002/sim.4780110204.CrossRefPubMed Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A: Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992, 11: 167-178. 10.1002/sim.4780110204.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Weir CJ, Walley RJ: Statistical evaluation of biomarker as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006, 25: 183-203. 10.1002/sim.2319.CrossRefPubMed Weir CJ, Walley RJ: Statistical evaluation of biomarker as surrogate endpoints: a literature review. Stat Med. 2006, 25: 183-203. 10.1002/sim.2319.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Shi Q, Sargent DJ: Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009, 14: 102-111. 10.1007/s10147-009-0885-4.CrossRefPubMed Shi Q, Sargent DJ: Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009, 14: 102-111. 10.1007/s10147-009-0885-4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Fleming TR: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1994, 8: 431-440. Fleming TR: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1994, 8: 431-440.
12.
go back to reference Hughes MD, DeGruttola V, Welles SL: Evaluating surrogate markers. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995, 10: S1-S8. 10.1097/00042560-199510001-00001.CrossRefPubMed Hughes MD, DeGruttola V, Welles SL: Evaluating surrogate markers. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995, 10: S1-S8. 10.1097/00042560-199510001-00001.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Daniels MJ, Hughes MD: Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med. 1997, 16: 1865-1982.CrossRef Daniels MJ, Hughes MD: Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med. 1997, 16: 1865-1982.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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. 10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Van Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2000, 1: 231-246. 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.231.CrossRefPubMed Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Van Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2000, 1: 231-246. 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.231.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM: Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med. 2005, 24: 163-182. 10.1002/sim.1779.CrossRefPubMed Korn EL, Albert PS, McShane LM: Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models. Stat Med. 2005, 24: 163-182. 10.1002/sim.1779.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Baker SG: A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics. 2006, 7: 58-70.CrossRefPubMed Baker SG: A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics. 2006, 7: 58-70.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Baker SG: Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008, 17: 505-514. 10.1177/0962280207081861.CrossRefPubMed Baker SG: Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008, 17: 505-514. 10.1177/0962280207081861.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Baker SG, Sargent DJ, Buyse M, Burzykowski T: Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics. 2012, 68: 248-257. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01646.x.CrossRefPubMed Baker SG, Sargent DJ, Buyse M, Burzykowski T: Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time. Biometrics. 2012, 68: 248-257. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01646.x.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Burzykowski T, Buyse M: Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006, 5: 173-186. 10.1002/pst.207.CrossRefPubMed Burzykowski T, Buyse M: Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat. 2006, 5: 173-186. 10.1002/pst.207.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Rolan P: The contribution of clinical pharmacology surrogates and models to drug development – a critical appraisal. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997, 44: 219-225.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rolan P: The contribution of clinical pharmacology surrogates and models to drug development – a critical appraisal. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997, 44: 219-225.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999, 18: 1905-1942. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999, 18: 1905-1942.
23.
go back to reference Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Conaghan PG, Ostergaard M, Maksymowych WP, Landewe R, Bresnihan B, Tak PP, Wakefield R, Mease P, Bingham CO, Hughes M, Altman D, Buyse M, Galbraith S, Wells G: Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. J Rheumatol. 2007, 34: 607-615.PubMed Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Conaghan PG, Ostergaard M, Maksymowych WP, Landewe R, Bresnihan B, Tak PP, Wakefield R, Mease P, Bingham CO, Hughes M, Altman D, Buyse M, Galbraith S, Wells G: Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. J Rheumatol. 2007, 34: 607-615.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Van Walraven C, Oake N, Coyle D, Taljaard M, Forster AJ: Changes in surrogate outcomes can be translated into clinical outcomes using a Monte Carlo model. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 1306-1315. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.015.CrossRefPubMed Van Walraven C, Oake N, Coyle D, Taljaard M, Forster AJ: Changes in surrogate outcomes can be translated into clinical outcomes using a Monte Carlo model. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 1306-1315. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.015.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Wang Y, Sung C, Dartois C, Ramchandani R, Booth BP, Rock E, Gobburu J: Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009, 86: 167-174. 10.1038/clpt.2009.64.CrossRefPubMed Wang Y, Sung C, Dartois C, Ramchandani R, Booth BP, Rock E, Gobburu J: Elucidation of relationship between tumor size and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients can aid early decision making in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009, 86: 167-174. 10.1038/clpt.2009.64.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T: Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 589-624. 10.1002/sim.1040.CrossRefPubMed Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T: Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 589-624. 10.1002/sim.1040.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulos S, van der Wal WM, Roes K: An analytical approach to assess the predictive value of biomarkers in phase II decision making. J Biopharm Stat. 2013, 23: 1106-1123. 10.1080/10543406.2013.814377.CrossRefPubMed Nikolakopoulos S, van der Wal WM, Roes K: An analytical approach to assess the predictive value of biomarkers in phase II decision making. J Biopharm Stat. 2013, 23: 1106-1123. 10.1080/10543406.2013.814377.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Thoresen M, Hellstrom-Westas L, Liu X, de Vries LS: Effect of hypothermia on amplitude-integrated electroencephalogram in infants with asphyxia. Pediatrics. 2010, 126: 131-139. 10.1542/peds.2009-2938.CrossRef Thoresen M, Hellstrom-Westas L, Liu X, de Vries LS: Effect of hypothermia on amplitude-integrated electroencephalogram in infants with asphyxia. Pediatrics. 2010, 126: 131-139. 10.1542/peds.2009-2938.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Bayesian prediction model between a biomarker and the clinical endpoint for dichotomous variables
Authors
Zhiwei Jiang
Yang Song
Qiong Shou
Jielai Xia
William Wang
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-500

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Trials 1/2014 Go to the issue