Literature DB >> 26493094

Identifying treatment effect heterogeneity in clinical trials using subpopulations of events: STEPP.

Ann A Lazar1, Marco Bonetti2, Bernard F Cole3, Wai-Ki Yip4, Richard D Gelber4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Investigators conducting randomized clinical trials often explore treatment effect heterogeneity to assess whether treatment efficacy varies according to patient characteristics. Identifying heterogeneity is central to making informed personalized healthcare decisions. Treatment effect heterogeneity can be investigated using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP), a non-parametric graphical approach that constructs overlapping patient subpopulations with varying values of a characteristic. Procedures for statistical testing using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot when the endpoint of interest is survival remain an area of active investigation.
METHODS: A STEPP analysis was used to explore patterns of absolute and relative treatment effects for varying levels of a breast cancer biomarker, Ki-67, in the phase III Breast International Group 1-98 randomized clinical trial, comparing letrozole to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Absolute treatment effects were measured by differences in 4-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer recurrence, while relative effects were measured by the subdistribution hazard ratio in the presence of competing risks using O-E (observed-minus-expected) methodology, an intuitive non-parametric method. While estimation of hazard ratio values based on O-E methodology has been shown, a similar development for the subdistribution hazard ratio has not. Furthermore, we observed that the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis may not produce results, even with 100 patients within each subpopulation. After further investigation through simulation studies, we observed inflation of the type I error rate of the traditional test statistic and sometimes singular variance-covariance matrix estimates that may lead to results not being produced. This is due to the lack of sufficient number of events within the subpopulations, which we refer to as instability of the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis. We introduce methodology designed to improve stability of the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis and generalize O-E methodology to the competing risks setting. Simulation studies were designed to assess the type I error rate of the tests for a variety of treatment effect measures, including subdistribution hazard ratio based on O-E estimation. This subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot methodology and standard regression modeling were used to evaluate heterogeneity of Ki-67 in the Breast International Group 1-98 randomized clinical trial.
RESULTS: We introduce methodology that generalizes O-E methodology to the competing risks setting and that improves stability of the STEPP analysis by pre-specifying the number of events across subpopulations while controlling the type I error rate. The subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis of the Breast International Group 1-98 randomized clinical trial showed that patients with high Ki-67 percentages may benefit most from letrozole, while heterogeneity was not detected using standard regression modeling.
CONCLUSION: The STEPP methodology can be used to study complex patterns of treatment effect heterogeneity, as illustrated in the Breast International Group 1-98 randomized clinical trial. For the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis, we recommend a minimum of 20 events within each subpopulation.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarker; breast cancer; competing risk; interaction; overview; permutation-based inference; personalized medicine; precision medicine; survival analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26493094      PMCID: PMC5563513          DOI: 10.1177/1740774515609106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  19 in total

1.  The utility of mitotic index, oestrogen receptor and Ki-67 measurements in the creation of novel prognostic indices for node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  P C Clahsen; C J van de Velde; C Duval; C Pallud; A M Mandard; A Delobelle-Deroide; L van den Broek; M J van de Vijver
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.424

2.  Detecting treatment-by-centre interaction in multi-centre clinical trials.

Authors:  R F Potthoff; B L Peterson; S L George
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data.

Authors:  M Bonetti; R D Gelber
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Issues related to subgroup analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  Lu Cui; H M James Hung; Sue Jane Wang; Yi Tsong
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.051

5.  Five years of letrozole compared with tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: update of study BIG 1-98.

Authors:  Alan S Coates; Aparna Keshaviah; Beat Thürlimann; Henning Mouridsen; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Robert Paridaens; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Richard D Gelber; Marco Colleoni; István Láng; Lucia Del Mastro; Ian Smith; Jacquie Chirgwin; Jean-Marie Nogaret; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Andrew Wardley; Erik H Jakobsen; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-01-02       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  More on subgroup analyses in clinical trials.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Jacobus Lubsen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Statistical considerations in evaluating pharmacogenomics-based clinical effect for confirmatory trials.

Authors:  Sue-Jane Wang; Robert T O'Neill; Hm James Hung
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

Authors:  Beat Thürlimann; Aparna Keshaviah; Alan S Coates; Henning Mouridsen; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Robert Paridaens; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Richard D Gelber; Manuela Rabaglio; Ian Smith; Andrew Wardley; Andrew Wardly; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials.

Authors:  Marco Bonetti; Richard D Gelber
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.899

10.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples.

Authors:  R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) analysis for continuous, binary, and count outcomes.

Authors:  Wai-Ki Yip; Marco Bonetti; Bernard F Cole; William Barcella; Xin Victoria Wang; Ann Lazar; Richard D Gelber
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  The SUPER study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination.

Authors:  N A Danhof; M van Wely; C A M Koks; J Gianotten; J P de Bruin; B J Cohlen; D P van der Ham; N F Klijn; M H A van Hooff; F J M Broekmans; K Fleischer; C A H Janssen; J M Rijn van Weert; J van Disseldorp; M Twisk; M Traas; M F G Verberg; M J Pelinck; J Visser; D A M Perquin; D E S Boks; H R Verhoeve; C F van Heteren; B W J Mol; S Repping; F van der Veen; M H Mochtar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Cardiopoietic cell therapy for advanced ischaemic heart failure: results at 39 weeks of the prospective, randomized, double blind, sham-controlled CHART-1 clinical trial.

Authors:  Jozef Bartunek; Andre Terzic; Beth A Davison; Gerasimos S Filippatos; Slavica Radovanovic; Branko Beleslin; Bela Merkely; Piotr Musialek; Wojciech Wojakowski; Peter Andreka; Ivan G Horvath; Amos Katz; Dariouch Dolatabadi; Badih El Nakadi; Aleksandra Arandjelovic; Istvan Edes; Petar M Seferovic; Slobodan Obradovic; Marc Vanderheyden; Nikola Jagic; Ivo Petrov; Shaul Atar; Majdi Halabi; Valeri L Gelev; Michael K Shochat; Jaroslaw D Kasprzak; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; Guy R Heyndrickx; Noémi Nyolczas; Victor Legrand; Antoine Guédès; Alex Heyse; Tiziano Moccetti; Francisco Fernandez-Aviles; Pilar Jimenez-Quevedo; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Jose Maria Hernandez-Garcia; Flavio Ribichini; Marcin Gruchala; Scott A Waldman; John R Teerlink; Bernard J Gersh; Thomas J Povsic; Timothy D Henry; Marco Metra; Roger J Hajjar; Michal Tendera; Atta Behfar; Bertrand Alexandre; Aymeric Seron; Wendy Gattis Stough; Warren Sherman; Gad Cotter; William Wijns
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  A Contextual-Bandit-Based Approach for Informed Decision-Making in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Yogatheesan Varatharajah; Brent Berry
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-21

5.  Validation of a network-based strategy for the optimization of combinatorial target selection in breast cancer therapy: siRNA knockdown of network targets in MDA-MB-231 cells as an in vitro model for inhibition of tumor development.

Authors:  Tatiana M Tilli; Nicolas Carels; Jack A Tuszynski; Manijeh Pasdar
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-09-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.