Bayesian hierarchical meta‐analytic methods for modeling surrogate relationships that vary across treatment classes using aggregate data

Surrogate endpoints play an important role in drug development when they can be used to measure treatment effect early compared to the final clinical outcome and to predict clinical benefit or harm. Such endpoints are assessed for their predictive value of clinical benefit by investigating the surrogate relationship between treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes using meta‐analytic methods. When surrogate relationships vary across treatment classes, such validation may fail due to limited data within each treatment class. In this paper, two alternative Bayesian meta‐analytic methods are introduced which allow for borrowing of information from other treatment classes when exploring the surrogacy in a particular class. The first approach extends a standard model for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints to a hierarchical meta‐analysis model assuming full exchangeability of surrogate relationships across all the treatment classes, thus facilitating borrowing of information across the classes. The second method is able to relax this assumption by allowing for partial exchangeability of surrogate relationships across treatment classes to avoid excessive borrowing of information from distinctly different classes. We carried out a simulation study to assess the proposed methods in nine data scenarios and compared them with subgroup analysis using the standard model within each treatment class. We also applied the methods to an illustrative example in colorectal cancer which led to obtaining the parameters describing the surrogate relationships with higher precision.

[1]  C M Grossman,et al.  Correction: Price of Oncology Textbook , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Bayesian meta‐analytical methods to incorporate multiple surrogate endpoints in drug development process , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  D. Sargent,et al.  Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  L. M. M.-T. Theory of Probability , 1929, Nature.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[6]  B. Sherrill,et al.  Meta-analysis of the association between progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer , 2012, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[7]  John A. Lewis,et al.  Subgroup Analyses in Randomized Clinical Trials: Statistical and Regulatory Issues , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[8]  W. Scheithauer,et al.  XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  Y. Bang,et al.  Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  D. Berry,et al.  Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: Efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials , 2013, Clinical trials.

[11]  Ariel Alonso,et al.  Applied Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Methods with SAS and R , 2016 .

[12]  M. Christian,et al.  [New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors]. , 2000, Bulletin du cancer.

[13]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[14]  U. Siebert,et al.  TREATMENT SWITCHING: STATISTICAL AND DECISION-MAKING CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES , 2016, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[15]  M. Buyse,et al.  Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials show suboptimal validity of surrogate outcomes for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  Brian P Hobbs,et al.  Bayesian hierarchical modeling based on multisource exchangeability , 2018, Biostatistics.

[17]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  R2WinBUGS: A Package for Running WinBUGS from R , 2005 .

[18]  P. Thall,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to phase II trials in diseases with multiple subtypes , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Alan Phillips,et al.  ICH E9 guideline ‘Statistical principles for clinical trials’: a case study , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  C. Dolea,et al.  World Health Organization , 1949, International Organization.

[21]  D. Ankerst,et al.  Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Endpoint for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis from 50 Randomized First-Line Trials , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[22]  T. Shanafelt,et al.  Are chemotherapy response rates related to treatment-induced survival prolongations in patients with advanced cancer? , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  N. Städler,et al.  Bivariate network meta‐analysis for surrogate endpoint evaluation , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  B. Efron Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 1979 .

[25]  J. Berlin,et al.  Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Paul A Meyers,et al.  Phase II multicenter trial of imatinib in 10 histologic subtypes of sarcoma using a bayesian hierarchical statistical model. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  P. Quesenberry,et al.  Heterogeneity of colorectal cancer (CRC) in reference to KRAS proto-oncogene utilizing WAVE technology. , 2013, Experimental and molecular pathology.

[28]  T. Fleming,et al.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  L. Wasserman,et al.  A Reference Bayesian Test for Nested Hypotheses and its Relationship to the Schwarz Criterion , 1995 .

[30]  Satrajit Roychoudhury,et al.  Robust exchangeability designs for early phase clinical trials with multiple strata , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[31]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  BAYES AND EMPIRICAL BAYES METHODS FOR DATA ANALYSIS , 1996, Stat. Comput..

[32]  Keith R Abrams,et al.  Uncertainty in the Bayesian meta-analysis of normally distributed surrogate endpoints , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[33]  D. Carraro,et al.  KRAS mutation status is highly homogeneous between areas of the primary tumor and the corresponding metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinomas: one less problem in patient care. , 2017, American journal of cancer research.

[34]  L. Wasserman,et al.  Computing Bayes Factors Using a Generalization of the Savage-Dickey Density Ratio , 1995 .

[35]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints , 2006, Handbook of Statistical Methods for Randomized Controlled Trials.

[36]  T. Louis Estimating a population of parameter values using Bayes and empirical Bayes methods , 1984 .

[37]  M J Daniels,et al.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  Marissa N Lassere,et al.  The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints , 2008, Statistical methods in medical research.

[39]  Bernadette A. Thomas,et al.  Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2012, The Lancet.

[40]  Laura M. Stapleton,et al.  Modeling Clustered Data with Very Few Clusters , 2016, Multivariate behavioral research.

[41]  B. Efron,et al.  Data Analysis Using Stein's Estimator and its Generalizations , 1975 .

[42]  R. Greil,et al.  Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.