Literature DB >> 23811760

A framework for evaluating markers used to select patient treatment.

Holly Janes1,2, Margaret S Pepe1,2, Ying Huang1,2.   

Abstract

There is growing interest in markers that can be used to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from a treatment. For example, the Gail breast cancer risk prediction model may be useful for identifying a subset of older women for whom the benefit of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention is likely to outweigh the harm. Two general classes of approaches to evaluating treatment selection markers have been developed. The first uses data on a cohort of untreated subjects to develop a risk prediction model, such as the Gail model, which is used to identify a high-risk subset of subjects. This model is paired with a measure of treatment effect to assess the impact of identifying and treating the high-risk subset. The second approach uses data from a randomized trial to model the treatment effect on a composite outcome that includes all effects of treatment (positive and negative). The treatment effect model is used to identify a subset of subjects with positive treatment effects and to assess the impact of identifying and treating this subset. We describe a framework that includes both existing approaches as special cases. In doing so, we review the existing approaches, clarify their underlying assumptions, and facilitate the evaluation of markers under less restrictive assumptions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical prediction rules; decision analysis; risk stratification

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23811760      PMCID: PMC3818438          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13493147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  31 in total

1.  Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial.

Authors:  Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Scott M Lippman; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-05-16       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  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

5.  Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence.

Authors:  J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: Preventing breast cancer.

Authors:  Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2010-04-19

7.  Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial.

Authors:  Trevor J Powles; Sue Ashley; Alwynne Tidy; Ian E Smith; Mitch Dowsett
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-02-21       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial.

Authors:  J Cuzick; J Forbes; R Edwards; M Baum; S Cawthorn; A Coates; A Hamed; A Howell; T Powles
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-09-14       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The potential of genes and other markers to inform about risk.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Jessie W Gu; Daryl E Morris
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  15 in total

1.  Identifying optimal biomarker combinations for treatment selection via a robust kernel method.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Youyi Fong
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Identifying optimal biomarker combinations for treatment selection through randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ying Huang
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Adjusting for covariates in evaluating markers for selecting treatment, with application to guiding chemotherapy for treating estrogen-receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Michael R Crager; Dave P Miller; William E Barlow
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Evaluation of biomarkers for treatment selection using individual participant data from multiple clinical trials.

Authors:  Chaeryon Kang; Holly Janes; Parvin Tajik; Henk Groen; Ben Mol; Corine Koopmans; Kim Broekhuijsen; Eva Zwertbroek; Maria van Pampus; Maureen Franssen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Risk calculators are useful but....

Authors:  Xiaofei Wang; Mark F Berry
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Designing a study to evaluate the benefit of a biomarker for selecting patient treatment.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Characterizing expected benefits of biomarkers in treatment selection.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Eric B Laber; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.899

9.  Combining biomarkers to optimize patient treatment recommendations.

Authors:  Chaeryon Kang; Holly Janes; Ying Huang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.968

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.