Literature DB >> 21815180

Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data.

Jared C Foster1, Jeremy M G Taylor, Stephen J Ruberg.   

Abstract

We consider the problem of identifying a subgroup of patients who may have an enhanced treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial, and it is desirable that the subgroup be defined by a limited number of covariates. For this problem, the development of a standard, pre-determined strategy may help to avoid the well-known dangers of subgroup analysis. We present a method developed to find subgroups of enhanced treatment effect. This method, referred to as 'Virtual Twins', involves predicting response probabilities for treatment and control 'twins' for each subject. The difference in these probabilities is then used as the outcome in a classification or regression tree, which can potentially include any set of the covariates. We define a measure Q(Â) to be the difference between the treatment effect in estimated subgroup  and the marginal treatment effect. We present several methods developed to obtain an estimate of Q(Â), including estimation of Q(Â) using estimated probabilities in the original data, using estimated probabilities in newly simulated data, two cross-validation-based approaches, and a bootstrap-based bias-corrected approach. Results of a simulation study indicate that the Virtual Twins method noticeably outperforms logistic regression with forward selection when a true subgroup of enhanced treatment effect exists. Generally, large sample sizes or strong enhanced treatment effects are needed for subgroup estimation. As an illustration, we apply the proposed methods to data from a randomized clinical trial.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21815180      PMCID: PMC3880775          DOI: 10.1002/sim.4322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  17 in total

Review 1.  Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.

Authors:  S T Brookes; E Whitley; T J Peters; P A Mulheran; M Egger; G Davey Smith
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  The mean does not mean as much anymore: finding sub-groups for tailored therapeutics.

Authors:  Stephen J Ruberg; Lei Chen; Yanping Wang
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Interaction trees with censored survival data.

Authors:  Xiaogang Su; Tianni Zhou; Xin Yan; Juanjuan Fan; Song Yang
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2008-01-28       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation.

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 8-14       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials.

Authors:  Rui Wang; Stephen W Lagakos; James H Ware; David J Hunter; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The problem of cogent subgroups: a clinicostatistical tragedy.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials.

Authors:  S F Assmann; S J Pocock; L E Enos; L E Kasten
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-25       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials.

Authors:  R Peto; R Collins; R Gray
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Bayesian subset analysis: application to studying treatment-by-gender interactions.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  The cross-validated adaptive signature design.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Wenyu Jiang; Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  123 in total

1.  Approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity in the presence of confounding.

Authors:  Sarah C Anoke; Sharon-Lise Normand; Corwin M Zigler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-03-31       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  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

3.  Random forests of interaction trees for estimating individualized treatment effects in randomized trials.

Authors:  Xiaogang Su; Annette T Peña; Lei Liu; Richard A Levine
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Variable selection in monotone single-index models via the adaptive LASSO.

Authors:  Jared C Foster; Jeremy M G Taylor; Bin Nan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Simple subgroup approximations to optimal treatment regimes from randomized clinical trial data.

Authors:  Jared C Foster; Jeremy M G Taylor; Niko Kaciroti; Bin Nan
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects.

Authors:  Susan Athey; Guido Imbens
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Subgroup identification in clinical trials: an overview of available methods and their implementations with R.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Heidi Seibold; Mario V Vettore; Woo-Jung Song; Vieille François
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-04

8.  Learning Optimal Personalized Treatment Rules in Consideration of Benefit and Risk: with an Application to Treating Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Insulin Therapies.

Authors:  Yuanjia Wang; Haoda Fu; Donglin Zeng
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies.

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

10.  Bayesian predictive modeling for genomic based personalized treatment selection.

Authors:  Junsheng Ma; Francesco C Stingo; Brian P Hobbs
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.