Stuart G Baker1, Marco Bonetti2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (SGB); Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policies and Bocconi University, Milan, Italy (MB) sb16i@nih.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (SGB); Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policies and Bocconi University, Milan, Italy (MB).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) is an appealing method for assessing the clinical impact of a predictive marker on patient outcomes and identifying a promising subgroup for further study. However, its original formulation lacked a decision analytic justification and applied only to a single marker. METHODS: We derive a decision-analytic result that motivates STEPP. We discuss the incorporation of multiple predictive markers into STEPP using risk difference, cadit, and responders-only benefit functions. RESULTS: Applying STEPP to data from a breast cancer treatment trial with multiple markers, we found that none of the three benefit functions identified a promising subgroup for further study. Applying STEPP to hypothetical data from a trial with 100 markers, we found that all three benefit functions identified promising subgroups as evidenced by the large statistically significant treatment effect in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Because the method has desirable decision-analytic properties and yields an informative plot, it is worth applying to randomized trials on the chance there is a large treatment effect in a subgroup determined by the predictive markers. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
BACKGROUND: The subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) is an appealing method for assessing the clinical impact of a predictive marker on patient outcomes and identifying a promising subgroup for further study. However, its original formulation lacked a decision analytic justification and applied only to a single marker. METHODS: We derive a decision-analytic result that motivates STEPP. We discuss the incorporation of multiple predictive markers into STEPP using risk difference, cadit, and responders-only benefit functions. RESULTS: Applying STEPP to data from a breast cancer treatment trial with multiple markers, we found that none of the three benefit functions identified a promising subgroup for further study. Applying STEPP to hypothetical data from a trial with 100 markers, we found that all three benefit functions identified promising subgroups as evidenced by the large statistically significant treatment effect in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Because the method has desirable decision-analytic properties and yields an informative plot, it is worth applying to randomized trials on the chance there is a large treatment effect in a subgroup determined by the predictive markers. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
Authors: Meredith M Regan; Patrick Neven; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Aron Goldhirsch; Bent Ejlertsen; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Ian Smith; István Láng; Andrew Wardley; Manuela Rabaglio; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Beat Thürlimann Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M C King; S Wieand; K Hale; M Lee; T Walsh; K Owens; J Tait; L Ford; B K Dunn; J Costantino; L Wickerham; N Wolmark; B Fisher Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-14 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Henning Mouridsen; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Aron Goldhirsch; Beat Thürlimann; Robert Paridaens; Ian Smith; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Karen N Price; Meredith M Regan; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 91.245