Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2003

Open Access 01-12-2003 | Research article

A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make

Authors: Stuart G Baker, Barnett S Kramer

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is common belief among some medical researchers that if a potential surrogate endpoint is highly correlated with a true endpoint, then a positive (or negative) difference in potential surrogate endpoints between randomization groups would imply a positive (or negative) difference in unobserved true endpoints between randomization groups. We investigate this belief when the potential surrogate and unobserved true endpoints are perfectly correlated within each randomization group.

Methods

We use a graphical approach. The vertical axis is the unobserved true endpoint and the horizontal axis is the potential surrogate endpoint. Perfect correlation within each randomization group implies that, for each randomization group, potential surrogate and true endpoints are related by a straight line. In this scenario the investigator does not know the slopes or intercepts. We consider a plausible example where the slope of the line is higher for the experimental group than for the control group.

Results

In our example with unknown lines, a decrease in mean potential surrogate endpoints from control to experimental groups corresponds to an increase in mean true endpoint from control to experimental groups. Thus the potential surrogate endpoints give the wrong inference. Similar results hold for binary potential surrogate and true outcomes (although the notion of correlation does not apply). The potential surrogate endpointwould give the correct inference if either (i) the unknown lines for the two group coincided, which means that the distribution of true endpoint conditional on potential surrogate endpoint does not depend on treatment group, which is called the Prentice Criterion or (ii) if one could accurately predict the lines based on data from prior studies.

Conclusion

Perfect correlation between potential surrogate and unobserved true outcomes within randomized groups does not guarantee correct inference based on a potential surrogate endpoint. Even in early phase trials, investigators should not base conclusions on potential surrogate endpoints in which the only validation is high correlation with the true endpoint within a group.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fleming TR, DeMets DL: Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled?. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1996, 125: 605-613.CrossRefPubMed Fleming TR, DeMets DL: Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled?. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1996, 125: 605-613.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Biomarkers Definition Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2001, 69: 89-95. 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.CrossRef Biomarkers Definition Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2001, 69: 89-95. 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002, 288: 2321-333. 10.1001/jama.288.3.321. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002, 288: 2321-333. 10.1001/jama.288.3.321.
4.
go back to reference Sandier RS, Halabi S, Baron JA, Budinger S, Paskett E, Keresztes R, Petrelli N, Pipas JM, Karp DD, Loprinzi CL, Steinbach G, Schilsky R: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 883-890. 10.1056/NEJMoa021633.CrossRef Sandier RS, Halabi S, Baron JA, Budinger S, Paskett E, Keresztes R, Petrelli N, Pipas JM, Karp DD, Loprinzi CL, Steinbach G, Schilsky R: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 883-890. 10.1056/NEJMoa021633.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Baron JA, Cole BF, Sandier RS, Haile RW, Ahnen D, Bresalier R, McKeown-Eyssen G, Summers RW, Rothstein R, Burke CA, Snover DC, Church TR, Allen JI, Beach M, Beck GJ, Bond JH, Byers T, Greenberg ER, Mandel JS, Marcon N, Mott LA, Pearson L, Saibil F, van Stolk RU: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 891-899. 10.1056/NEJMoa021735.CrossRefPubMed Baron JA, Cole BF, Sandier RS, Haile RW, Ahnen D, Bresalier R, McKeown-Eyssen G, Summers RW, Rothstein R, Burke CA, Snover DC, Church TR, Allen JI, Beach M, Beck GJ, Bond JH, Byers T, Greenberg ER, Mandel JS, Marcon N, Mott LA, Pearson L, Saibil F, van Stolk RU: A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 891-899. 10.1056/NEJMoa021735.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Imperiale TF: Aspirin and the prevention of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 879-880. 10.1056/NEJMp030005.CrossRefPubMed Imperiale TF: Aspirin and the prevention of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 348: 879-880. 10.1056/NEJMp030005.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Levin B: Potential pitfalls in the use of surrogate endpoints in colorectal adenoma chemoprevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2003, 95: 697-698. 10.1093/jnci/95.10.697.CrossRefPubMed Levin B: Potential pitfalls in the use of surrogate endpoints in colorectal adenoma chemoprevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2003, 95: 697-698. 10.1093/jnci/95.10.697.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Schatzkin A, Gail M: The promise and peril of surrogate endpoints in cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2002, 2: 1-9. 10.1038/nrc702.CrossRef Schatzkin A, Gail M: The promise and peril of surrogate endpoints in cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2002, 2: 1-9. 10.1038/nrc702.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Miller GJ, Ford LG, Lieber MM, Cespedes RD, Atkins JN, Lippman SM, Carlin SM, Ryan A, Szczepanek CM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA: The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 349: 215-224. 10.1056/NEJMoa030660.CrossRefPubMed Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Miller GJ, Ford LG, Lieber MM, Cespedes RD, Atkins JN, Lippman SM, Carlin SM, Ryan A, Szczepanek CM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA: The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003, 349: 215-224. 10.1056/NEJMoa030660.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine. 1989, 8: 431-430.CrossRefPubMed Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine. 1989, 8: 431-430.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Wang Y, Taylor JMG: A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics. 2002, 58: 803-812.CrossRefPubMed Wang Y, Taylor JMG: A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics. 2002, 58: 803-812.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Baker SG: Analyzing a randomized cancer prevention trial with a missing binary outcome, an auxiliary variable, and all-or-none compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000, 95: 43-50.CrossRef Baker SG: Analyzing a randomized cancer prevention trial with a missing binary outcome, an auxiliary variable, and all-or-none compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000, 95: 43-50.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2001, 3: 231-246. Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2001, 3: 231-246.
14.
go back to reference Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D, Burzykowski T, Alonso A: Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2002, 23: 607-625. 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00236-2.CrossRefPubMed Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D, Burzykowski T, Alonso A: Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2002, 23: 607-625. 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00236-2.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make
Authors
Stuart G Baker
Barnett S Kramer
Publication date
01-12-2003
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2003
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-16

Other articles of this Issue 1/2003

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2003 Go to the issue