LAUSR

Increasing attention has been focused on the use and validation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Previous literature on validation of surrogate endpoints are classified into four approaches: the proportion explained approach; the indirect effects approach; the meta-analytic approach; and the principal stratification approach. The mainstream in cancer research has seen the application of a meta-analytic approach. However, VanderWeele (2013) showed that all four of these approaches potentially suffer from the surrogate paradox. It was also shown that, if a principal surrogate satisfies additional criteria called one-sided average causal sufficiency, the surrogate cannot exhibit a surrogate paradox. Here, we propose a method for estimating principal effects under a monotonicity assumption. Specifically, we consider cancer clinical trials which compare a binary surrogate endpoint and a time-to-event clinical endpoint under two naturally ordered treatments (e.g. combined therapy vs. monotherapy). Estimation based on a mean score estimating equation will be implemented by the expectation-maximization algorithm. We will also apply the proposed method as well as other surrogacy criteria to evaluate the surrogacy of prostate-specific antigen using data from a phase III advanced prostate cancer trial, clarifying the complementary roles of both the principal stratification and meta-analytic approaches in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.