Baker Stuart G, Kramer Barnett S
Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Sep 9;3:16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-16.
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.
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.
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 endpoint would 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.
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.
一些医学研究人员普遍认为,如果一个潜在替代终点与真实终点高度相关,那么随机分组之间潜在替代终点的正向(或负向)差异将意味着随机分组之间未观察到的真实终点存在正向(或负向)差异。当潜在替代终点和未观察到的真实终点在每个随机分组内完全相关时,我们对这一观点进行研究。
我们采用一种图形化方法。纵轴为未观察到的真实终点,横轴为潜在替代终点。每个随机分组内的完全相关意味着,对于每个随机分组,潜在替代终点和真实终点由一条直线相关联。在这种情况下,研究者不知道斜率或截距。我们考虑一个合理的例子,即实验组直线的斜率高于对照组。
在我们直线未知的例子中,从对照组到实验组平均潜在替代终点的降低对应于从对照组到实验组平均真实终点的增加。因此,潜在替代终点给出了错误的推断。对于二元潜在替代终点和真实结局也有类似结果(尽管相关性的概念并不适用)。如果(i)两组的未知直线重合,这意味着基于潜在替代终点的真实终点分布不依赖于治疗组,这称为普伦蒂斯标准,或者(ii)如果可以根据先前研究的数据准确预测直线,那么潜在替代终点将给出正确的推断。
随机分组内潜在替代终点与未观察到的真实结局之间的完全相关并不能保证基于潜在替代终点的正确推断。即使在早期试验中,研究者也不应基于仅在组内与真实终点高度相关作为唯一验证的潜在替代终点得出结论。