Literature DB >> 21320940

Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions.

Holly Janes1, Margaret S Pepe, Patrick M Bossuyt, William E Barlow.   

Abstract

Treatment selection markers, sometimes called predictive markers, are factors that help clinicians select therapies that maximize good outcomes and minimize adverse outcomes for patients. Existing statistical methods for evaluating a treatment selection marker include assessing its prognostic value, evaluating treatment effects in patients with a restricted range of marker values, and testing for a statistical interaction between marker value and treatment. These methods are inadequate, because they give misleading measures of performance that do not answer key clinical questions about how the marker might help patients choose treatment, how treatment decisions should be made on the basis of a continuous marker measurement, what effect using the marker to select treatment would have on the population, or what proportion of patients would have treatment changes on the basis of marker measurement. Marker-by-treatment predictiveness curves are proposed as a more useful aid to answering these clinically relevant questions, because they illustrate treatment effects as a function of marker value, outcomes when using or not using the marker to select treatment, and the proportion of patients for whom treatment recommendations change after marker measurement. Randomized therapeutic clinical trials, in which entry criteria and treatment regimens are not restricted by the marker, are also proposed as the basis for constructing the curves and evaluating and comparing markers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21320940      PMCID: PMC3085402          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-4-201102150-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  22 in total

1.  Adaptive signature design: an adaptive clinical trial design for generating and prospectively testing a gene expression signature for sensitive patients.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 3.  Statistical issues in translational cancer research.

Authors:  Stephen L George
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Richard M Simon; Soonmyung Paik; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials.

Authors:  Daniel J Sargent; Barbara A Conley; Carmen Allegra; Laurence Collette
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Peter M Ravdin; William B Farrar; Gary V Burton; Steven J Ketchel; Charles D Cobau; Ellis G Levine; James N Ingle; Kathleen I Pritchard; Allen S Lichter; Daniel J Schneider; Martin D Abeloff; I Craig Henderson; Hyman B Muss; Stephanie J Green; Danika Lew; Robert B Livingston; Silvana Martino; C Kent Osborne
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christos S Karapetis; Shirin Khambata-Ford; Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Dongsheng Tu; Niall C Tebbutt; R John Simes; Haji Chalchal; Jeremy D Shapiro; Sonia Robitaille; Timothy J Price; Lois Shepherd; Heather-Jane Au; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore; John R Zalcberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy.

Authors:  Carmen J Allegra; J Milburn Jessup; Mark R Somerfield; Stanley R Hamilton; Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Pamela K McAllister; Roscoe F Morton; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Evaluating new cardiovascular risk factors for risk stratification.

Authors:  Ralph H Stern
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  58 in total

1.  Increasing efficiency for estimating treatment-biomarker interactions with historical data.

Authors:  Philip S Boonstra; Jeremy Mg Taylor; Bhramar Mukherjee
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 2.  Evaluation of heart failure biomarker tests: a survey of statistical considerations.

Authors:  Arkendra De; Kristen Meier; Rong Tang; Meijuan Li; Thomas Gwise; Shanti Gomatam; Gene Pennello
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Treatment selections using risk-benefit profiles based on data from comparative randomized clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

Authors:  Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Davide Castagno; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Xenograft-based, platform-independent gene signatures to predict response to alkylating chemotherapy, radiation, and combination therapy for glioblastoma.

Authors:  Shuang G Zhao; Menggang Yu; Daniel E Spratt; S Laura Chang; Felix Y Feng; Michelle M Kim; Corey W Speers; Brett L Carlson; Ann C Mladek; Theodore S Lawrence; Jann N Sarkaria; Daniel R Wahl
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 12.300

5.  Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology.

Authors:  Michael L Maitland; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  EFFECTIVELY SELECTING A TARGET POPULATION FOR A FUTURE COMPARATIVE STUDY.

Authors:  Lihui Zhao; Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Brian Claggett; L J Wei
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Single index methods for evaluation of marker-guided treatment rules based on multivariate marker panels.

Authors:  Veronika Skrivankova; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  The Fundamental Difficulty With Evaluating the Accuracy of Biomarkers for Guiding Treatment.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe; Lisa M McShane; Daniel J Sargent; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Development and validation of a cardiovascular disease risk-prediction model using population health surveys: the Cardiovascular Disease Population Risk Tool (CVDPoRT).

Authors:  Douglas G Manuel; Meltem Tuna; Carol Bennett; Deirdre Hennessy; Laura Rosella; Claudia Sanmartin; Jack V Tu; Richard Perez; Stacey Fisher; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies.

Authors:  Roland A Matsouaka; Junlong Li; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.