A Poisson approach to the validation of failure time surrogate endpoints in individual patient data meta-analyses

Abstract

Surrogate endpoints are often used in clinical trials instead of well-established hard endpoints for practical convenience. The meta-analytic approach relies on two measures of surrogacy: one at the individual level and one at the trial level. In the survival data setting, a two-step model based on copulas is commonly used. We present a new approach which employs a bivariate survival model with an individual random effect shared between the two endpoints and correlated treatment-by-trial interactions. We fit this model using auxiliary mixed Poisson models. We study via simulations the operating characteristics of this mixed Poisson approach as compared to the two-step copula approach. We illustrate the application of the methods on two individual patient data meta-analyses in gastric cancer, in the advanced setting (4069 patients from 20 randomized trials) and in the adjuvant setting (3288 patients from 14 randomized trials).

Keywords

Surrogate endpoint failure time meta-analysis copula randomized trials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burzykowski

Molenberghs

Buyse

. The evaluation of surrogate endpoints, New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.

Chakravarty

Sridhara

. Use of progression-free survival as a surrogate marker in oncology trials: some regulatory issues. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 515–518.

Buyse

Molenberghs

Paoletti

et al.

Statistical evaluation of surrogate endpoints with examples from cancer clinical trials. Biom J 2016; 58: 104–132.

Blumenthal

Karuri

Zhang

et al.

Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US food and drug administration trial-level and patient-level analyses. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 1008–1014.

Daniels

Hughes

. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med 1997; 16: 1965–1982.

Buyse

Molenberghs

. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998; 54: 1014–1029.

Buyse

Molenberghs

Burzykowski

et al.

The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 49–67.

Burzykowski

Molenberghs

Buyse

et al.

Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. J Roy Stat Soc Appl Stat 2001; 50: 405–422.

Kendall

. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 1938; 30: 81–93.

10.

van Houwelingen

Arends

Stijnen

. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 2002; 21: 589–624.

11.

Sargent

Wieand

Haller

et al.

Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: Individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8664–8670.

12.

Buyse

Burzykowski

Carroll

et al.

Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5218–5224.

13.

Burzykowski

Buyse

Piccart-Gebhart

et al.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1987–1992.

14.

Buyse

Burzykowski

Michiels

et al.

Individual- and trial-level surrogacy in colorectal cancer. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 467–75.

15.

Michiels

Le Maître

Buyse

et al.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in locally advanced head and neck cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 341–350.

16.

Oba

Paoletti

Alberts

et al.

Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Canc Inst 2013; 105: 1600–1607.

17.

Paoletti

Oba

Bang

et al.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer trials: a meta-analysis. J Natl Canc Inst 2013; 105: 1667–1670.

18.

Mauguen

Pignon

Burdett

et al.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients’ data. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 619–626.

19.

Michiels

Pugliano

Marguet

et al.

Progression-free survival as surrogate end point for overall survival in clinical trials of HER2-targeted agents in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 1029–1034.

20.

Rotolo

Pignon

Bourhis

et al.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in loco-regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Natl Canc Inst 2017; 109. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djw239.

21.

Green

Yothers

Sargent

. Surrogate endpoint validation: statistical elegance versus clinical relevance. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 477–486.

22.

Burzykowski

. Surrogate endpoints: wishful thinking or reality? Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 463–466.

23.

Shi

Renfro

Bot

et al.

Comparative assessment of trial-level surrogacy measures for candidate time-to-event surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Comput Stat Data Anal 2011; 55: 2748–2757.

24.

Renfro

Shi

Sargent

et al.

Bayesian adjusted R² for the meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate time-to-event endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med 2012; 31: 743–761.

25.

Ghosh

Taylor

JMG

Sargent

. Meta-analysis for surrogacy: accelerated failure time models and semicompeting risks modeling. Biometrics 2012; 68: 226–232.

26.

Alonso

Molenberghs

. Evaluating time to cancer recurrence as a surrogate marker for survival from an information theory perspective. Stat Methods Med Res 2008; 17: 497–504.

27.

Vaupel

Manton

Stallard

. The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography 1979; 16: 439–454.

28.

Duchateau

Janssen

. The frailty model, New York, NY: Springer Verlag, 2008.

29.

Wienke

. Frailty models in survival analysis. (Chapman & Hall/CRC biostatistics series), Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis, 2010. DOI:10.1201/9781420073911.

30.

Burzykowski

Cortiñas Abrahantes

Validation in the case of two failure-time endpoints. In: Burzykowski

Molenberghs

Buyse

(eds). The evaluation of surrogate endpoints, New York, NY: Springer, 2005, pp. 163–194.

31.

Rondeau

Pignon

Michiels

. A joint model for the dependence between clustered times to tumour progression and deaths: a meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. Stat Methods Med Res 2011; 24: 711–729.

32.

Whitehead

. Fitting Cox’s regression model to survival data using GLIM. J Roy Stat Soc C Appl Stat 1980; 29: 268–275.

33.

Laird

Olivier

. Covariance analysis of censored survival data using log-linear analysis techniques. J Am Stat Assoc 1981; 76: 231–240.

34.

Krewski

Burnett

. Random effects Cox models: a Poisson modelling approach. Biometrika 2003; 90: 157–169.

35.

Feng

Nie

Wolfe

. Laplace’s approximation for relative risk frailty models. Lifetime Data Anal 2009; 15: 343–356.

36.

Hirsch

Wienke

Kuss

. Log-normal frailty models fitted as Poisson generalized linear mixed models. Comput Meth Programs Biomed 2016; 137: 167–175.

37.

Crowther

Riley

Staessen

et al.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of survival data using Poisson regression models. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 34–34.

38.

The GASTRIC group. Role of chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer: an individual-patient-data meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1565–1577.

39.

The GASTRIC group. Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2010; 303: 1729–1737.

40.

Renfro

Shang

Sargent

. Impact of copula directional specification on multi-trial evaluation of surrogate endpoints. J Biopharm Stat 2015; 25: 857–877.

41.

Clayton

. A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 1978; 65: 141–151.

42.

Plackett

. A class of bivariate distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 1965; 60: 516–522.

43.

Hougaard

. A class of multivariate failure time distributions. Biometrika 1986; 73: 671–678.

44.

Gasparrini

Armstrong

Kenward

. Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations. Stat Med 2012; 31: 3821–3839.

45.

Hougaard

. Analysis of multivariate survival data, Germany: Springer Verlag, 2000.

46.

Munda M. Beyond the shared frailty model. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, https://hdl-handle-net.web.bisu.edu.cn/2078.1/150625%0A (2014, accessed 19 June 2017).

47.

Asmussen

Jensen

Rojas-Nandayapa

. On the Laplace transform of the lognormal distribution. Meth Comput Appl Probab 2014; 18: 441–458.

48.

Goutis

Casella

. Explaining the saddlepoint approximation. Am Stat 1999; 53: 216–224.

49.

Rotolo F. surrosurv: evaluation of failure time surrogate endpoints in individual patient data meta-analyses (R package version 1.1.15), https://cran.r-project.org/package=surrosurv (2017, accessed 19 June 2017).

50.

Shih

Louis

. Inferences on the association parameter in copula models for bivariate survival data. Biometrics 1995; 51: 1384–1399.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB