Clinical trials often collect longitudinal measurements of a disease marker and time to a major clinical event of the disease to assess treatment effects. It makes sense to combine the treatment effects on both the longitudinal disease marker and the time to clinical event, especially when the clinical event is also mediated through the disease marker over time. In this paper we apply a joint modeling approach in the assessment of the treatment effects in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for the ProscarTM Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study (PLESS).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Wasson J, Reda D, Bruskeqitz R, Elinson J, Keller A, Henderson W. A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia prostatectomy. New Engl J Med1995; 332:75–79.
2.
2. McConnell J, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P. et al. The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. New Engl J Med1998; 338: 557–563.
3.
3. De Gruttola V, Tu X. Modelling progression of CD4-lymphocyte count and its relationship to survival time. Biometrics1994; 50: 1003–1014.
4.
4. Faucett C, Thomas D. Simultaneously modeling censored survival data and repeatedly measured covariates: a Gibbs sampling approach. Stat Med1996; 15: 1663–1685.
5.
5. Wulfsohn M, Tsiatis A. A joint model for survival and longitudinal data measured with error. Biometrics1997; 53: 330–339.
6.
6. Finkelstein D, Schoenfeld D. Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials. Stat Med1999; 18: 1341–1354.
7.
7. Xu J, Zeger S. Joint analysis and longitudinal data comprising repeated measures and times-to-events. Appl Stat2001; 50: 375–387.
8.
8. Pauler D, Finkelstein D. Predicting time to prostate cancer recurrence based on joint models for non-linear longitudinal biomarkers and event time outcomes. Stat Med2002; 21: 3897–3911.
9.
9. Boyle, P, Gould A, Roehrborn C. Prostate volume predicts outcome of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with finasteride: meta analysis of randomized clinical trials. Urology1996; 48: 398–405.
10.
10. Prentice R. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med1989; 8: 431–440.
11.
11. Rosenbaum PR. The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. J R Statist Soc A1984; 147: 656–666.
12.
12. Freedman L, Graubard B. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med1992; 11: 167–178.
13.
13. Lin D, Fleming T, De Gruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med1997; 16: 1515–1527.
14.
14. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Gilks W. BUGS 0.5: Bayesian inference using Gibbs Sampling Manual (version ii), MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/documentation/contents.shtml, 1996. (Last accessed 19 July 2004).
15.
15. He W. Joint modeling time-to-event and longitudinal data using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods with application to the ProscarTM Long-Term Efficacy And Safety Study. Dissertation, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Department of Biostatistics, 2002.
16.
16. Lin H, Turnbull B, McCulloch C, Slate E. Latent class models for joint analysis of longitudinal biomarker and event process data: application to longitudinal prostate-specific antigen readings and prostate cancer. J Am Stat Assoc2002; 97: 53–65.
