Literature DB >> 24695044

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

Holly Janes, Marshall D Brown, Ying Huang, Margaret S Pepe.   

Abstract

Despite the heightened interest in developing biomarkers predicting treatment response that are used to optimize patient treatment decisions, there has been relatively little development of statistical methodology to evaluate these markers. There is currently no unified statistical framework for marker evaluation. This paper proposes a suite of descriptive and inferential methods designed to evaluate individual markers and to compare candidate markers. An R software package has been developed which implements these methods. Their utility is illustrated in the breast cancer treatment context, where candidate markers are evaluated for their ability to identify a subset of women who do not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and can therefore avoid its toxicity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24695044      PMCID: PMC4341986          DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2012-0052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biostat        ISSN: 1557-4679            Impact factor:   0.968


  37 in total

1.  Assessing risk prediction models in case-control studies using semiparametric and nonparametric methods.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections.

Authors:  Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian; Peggy H Wong; L J Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data.

Authors:  Jared C Foster; Jeremy M G Taylor; Stephen J Ruberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Annika Malmström; Bjørn Henning Grønberg; Christine Marosi; Roger Stupp; Didier Frappaz; Henrik Schultz; Ufuk Abacioglu; Björn Tavelin; Benoit Lhermitte; Monika E Hegi; Johan Rosell; Roger Henriksson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Semiparametric methods for evaluating the covariate-specific predictiveness of continuous markers in matched case-control studies.

Authors:  Y Huang; M S Pepe
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.864

6.  PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES.

Authors:  Min Qian; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Ann Stat       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 4.028

7.  A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models.

Authors:  S Lemeshow; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Kathleen F Kerr; Gary Longton; Zheyu Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Assessing treatment-selection markers using a potential outcomes framework.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Peter B Gilbert; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Prognostic interaction between expression of p53 and estrogen receptor in patients with node-negative breast cancer: results from IBCSG Trials VIII and IX.

Authors:  Alan S Coates; Ewan K A Millar; Sandra A O'Toole; Timothy J Molloy; Giuseppe Viale; Aron Goldhirsch; Meredith M Regan; Richard D Gelber; Zhuoxin Sun; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Barry Gusterson; Elizabeth A Musgrove; Robert L Sutherland
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  25 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  On Enrichment Strategies for Biomarker Stratified Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Xiaofei Wang; Jingzhu Zhou; Ting Wang; Stephen L George
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 1.051

6.  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

7.  Dynamic treatment regimes: technical challenges and applications.

Authors:  Eric B Laber; Daniel J Lizotte; Min Qian; William E Pelham; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Electron J Stat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.125

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.  Case-only approach to identifying markers predicting treatment effects on the relative risk scale.

Authors:  James Y Dai; C Jason Liang; Michael LeBlanc; Ross L Prentice; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.