Literature DB >> 25263614

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

Mei-Yin C Polley1, Eric C Polley, Erich P Huang, Boris Freidlin, Richard Simon.   

Abstract

Cancer biomarkers are frequently evaluated using archived specimens collected from previously conducted therapeutic trials. Routine collection and banking of high quality specimens is an expensive and time-consuming process. Therefore, care should be taken to preserve these precious resources. Here, we propose a novel two-stage adaptive cutoff design that affords the possibility to stop the biomarker study early if an evaluation of the model performance is unsatisfactory at an early stage, thereby allowing one to preserve the remaining specimens for future research. In addition, our design integrates important elements necessary to meet statistical rigor and practical demands for developing and validating a prognostic biomarker signature, including maintaining strict separation between the datasets used to build and evaluate the model and producing a locked-down signature to facilitate future validation. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed design. We show that under the null hypothesis when the model performance is deemed undesirable, the proposed design maintains type I error at the nominal level, has high probabilities of terminating the study early, and results in substantial savings in specimens. Under the alternative hypothesis, power is generally high when the total sample size and the targeted degree of improvement in prediction accuracy are reasonably large. We illustrate the use of the procedure with a dataset in patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. The practical aspects of the proposed designs are discussed. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarker validation; cancer biomarker; cross-validation; early stopping; two-stage design

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25263614      PMCID: PMC4227914          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6310

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification.

Authors:  Richard Simon; Michael D Radmacher; Kevin Dobbin; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: ready for clinical use?

Authors:  Jyothi Subramanian; Richard Simon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Bertrand Coiffier; Eric Lepage; Josette Briere; Raoul Herbrecht; Hervé Tilly; Reda Bouabdallah; Pierre Morel; Eric Van Den Neste; Gilles Salles; Philippe Gaulard; Felix Reyes; Pierre Lederlin; Christian Gisselbrecht
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-01-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  R I Fisher; E R Gaynor; S Dahlberg; M M Oken; T M Grogan; E M Mize; J H Glick; C A Coltman; T P Miller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-04-08       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors.

Authors:  D G Altman; B Lausen; W Sauerbrei; M Schumacher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Andreas Rosenwald; George Wright; Wing C Chan; Joseph M Connors; Elias Campo; Richard I Fisher; Randy D Gascoyne; H Konrad Muller-Hermelink; Erlend B Smeland; Jena M Giltnane; Elaine M Hurt; Hong Zhao; Lauren Averett; Liming Yang; Wyndham H Wilson; Elaine S Jaffe; Richard Simon; Richard D Klausner; John Powell; Patricia L Duffey; Dan L Longo; Timothy C Greiner; Dennis D Weisenburger; Warren G Sanger; Bhavana J Dave; James C Lynch; Julie Vose; James O Armitage; Emilio Montserrat; Armando López-Guillermo; Thomas M Grogan; Thomas P Miller; Michel LeBlanc; German Ott; Stein Kvaloy; Jan Delabie; Harald Holte; Peter Krajci; Trond Stokke; Louis M Staudt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-06-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

Authors:  Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high dimensional classifiers.

Authors:  Kevin K Dobbin; Richard M Simon
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 3.063

10.  Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection.

Authors:  Sudhir Varma; Richard Simon
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-02-23       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Auxiliary variable-enriched biomarker-stratified design.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Xiaofei Wang; Haibo Zhou; Jianwen Cai; Stephen L George
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-16       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice.

Authors:  S Michiels; N Ternès; F Rotolo
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 32.976

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.