Literature DB >> 23413213

Early termination of a two-stage study to develop and validate a panel of biomarkers.

Joseph S Koopmeiners1, Rachel Isaksson Vogel.   

Abstract

Two-stage designs to develop and validate a panel of biomarkers present a natural setting for the inclusion of stopping rules for futility in the event of poor preliminary estimates of performance. We consider the design of a two-stage study to develop and validate a panel of biomarkers where a predictive model is developed using a subset of the samples in stage 1 and the model is validated using the remainder of the samples in stage 2. First, we illustrate how we can implement a stopping rule for futility in a standard, two-stage study for developing and validating a predictive model where samples are separated into a training sample and a validation sample. Simulation results indicate that our design has type I error rate and power similar to the fixed-sample design but with a substantially reduced sample size under the null hypothesis. We then illustrate how we can include additional interim analyses in stage 2 by applying existing group sequential methodology, which results in even greater savings in the number of samples required under both the null and the alternative hypotheses. Our simulation results also illustrate that the operating characteristics of our design are robust to changes in the underlying marker distribution.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23413213      PMCID: PMC3888241          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5622

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


  11 in total

1.  Group sequential design for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies: implications and guidelines for practitioners.

Authors:  Madhu Mazumdar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Conditional estimation of sensitivity and specificity from a phase 2 biomarker study allowing early termination for futility.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Ziding Feng; Gary Longton; Joseph Koopmeiners
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Group sequential designs using a family of type I error probability spending functions.

Authors:  I K Hwang; W J Shih; J S De Cani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Nonparametric and semiparametric group sequential methods for comparing accuracy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Liansheng Tang; Scott S Emerson; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  The lasso method for variable selection in the Cox model.

Authors:  R Tibshirani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials.

Authors:  P C O'Brien; T R Fleming
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Conditional estimation after a two-stage diagnostic biomarker study that allows early termination for futility.

Authors:  Joseph S Koopmeiners; Ziding Feng; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Group sequential design for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Madhu Mazumdar; Aiyi Liu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Asymptotic Properties of the Sequential Empirical ROC, PPV and NPV Curves Under Case-Control Sampling.

Authors:  Joseph S Koopmeiners; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Ann Stat       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 4.028

10.  Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Holly Janes; Patrick M Bossuyt; John D Potter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  7 in total

1.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Two-stage adaptive cutoff design for building and validating a prognostic biomarker signature.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Eric C Polley; Erich P Huang; Boris Freidlin; Richard Simon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Two-stage biomarker panel study and estimation allowing early termination for futility.

Authors:  Shanshan Zhao; Yingye Zheng; Ross L Prentice; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Two-Stage Adaptive Design for Prognostic Biomarker Signatures with a Survival Endpoint.

Authors:  Biyue Dai; Mei-Yin C Polley
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 1.586

5.  Unbiased estimation of biomarker panel performance when combining training and testing data in a group sequential design.

Authors:  Nabihah Tayob; Kim-Anh Do; Ziding Feng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Correcting for bias in the selection and validation of informative diagnostic tests.

Authors:  David S Robertson; A Toby Prevost; Jack Bowden
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Evaluation of protein biomarkers of prostate cancer aggressiveness.

Authors:  Anthony E Rizzardi; Nikolaus K Rosener; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Gregory J Metzger; Colleen L Forster; Lauren O Marston; Jessica R Tiffany; James B McCarthy; Eva A Turley; Christopher A Warlick; Jonathan C Henriksen; Stephen C Schmechel
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 4.430

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.