Literature DB >> 30288143

Balancing Confounding and Generalizability Using Observational, Real-world Data: 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Effect on Active Surveillance.

Steven Canfield1, Michael J Kemeter2, Phillip G Febbo2, John Hornberger2.   

Abstract

Randomized, controlled trials can provide high-quality, unbiased evidence for therapeutic interventions but are not always a practical or viable study design for certain healthcare decisions, such as those involving prognostic or predictive testing. Studies using large, real-world databases may be more appropriate and more generalizable to the intended target population of physicians and patients to answer these questions but carry potential for hidden bias. We illustrate several emerging methods of analyzing observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM). These advanced statistical methods are intended to reveal a "hidden experiment" within an observational database, and so refute or confirm a potential causal effect of assignment to an intervention and study outcome. We applied these methods to the Optum™ Research Database (ORD; Eden Prairie, MN) of electronic health records and administrative claims data to assess the effect of the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) assay on use of active surveillance (AS). In a traditional multivariable logistic regression, the GPS assay increased the use of AS by 29% (95% CI, 24%-33%). Upon applying the matching methods, the effect of the GPS assay on AS use varied between 27% and 80% and the matched data were significant among all algorithms. All matching algorithms performed well in identifying matched data that improved the imbalance in baseline covariates. By using different matching methods to assess causal inference in an observational database, we provide further confidence that the effect of the GPS assay on AS use is statistically significant and unlikely to be a result of confounding due to differences in baseline characteristics of the patients or the settings in which they were seen.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Comparative effectiveness research; Evidence-based practice; Genomic biomarker; Matching; Propensity score; Prostate cancer

Year:  2018        PMID: 30288143      PMCID: PMC6168323          DOI: 10.3909/riu0799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Urol        ISSN: 1523-6161


  23 in total

1.  Willingness to participate in clinical treatment research among older African Americans and Whites.

Authors:  Diane R Brown; Meral Topcu
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2003-02

Review 2.  Statistical innovations in the medical device world sparked by the FDA.

Authors:  Gregory Campbell; Lilly Q Yue
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 3.  Addressing unmeasured confounding in comparative observational research.

Authors:  Xiang Zhang; Douglas E Faries; Hu Li; James D Stamey; Guido W Imbens
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 2.890

4.  Variation in prostate cancer treatment associated with population density of the county of residence.

Authors:  C Cary; A Y Odisho; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 5.  Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy.

Authors:  Jennifer A H Bell; Lynda G Balneaves
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-01-17       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Behfar Ehdaie; Melissa Assel; Nicole Benfante; Deepak Malhotra; Andrew Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Beyond accuracy: hidden motives in diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Matthias Michiels-Corsten; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.267

8.  A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score as a Predictor of Metastases and Prostate Cancer Death in Surgically Treated Men with Clinically Localized Disease.

Authors:  Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Ruixiao Lu; Nan Zhang; Charles P Quesenberry; Jun Shan; Jeong S Han; Athanasios C Tsiatis; Amethyst D Leimpeter; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Phillip G Febbo; Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling.

Authors:  Eric A Klein; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jeffry P Simko; Sara M Falzarano; Tara Maddala; June M Chan; Jianbo Li; Janet E Cowan; Athanasios C Tsiatis; Diana B Cherbavaz; Robert J Pelham; Imelda Tenggara-Hunter; Frederick L Baehner; Dejan Knezevic; Phillip G Febbo; Steven Shak; Michael W Kattan; Mark Lee; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  2 in total

1.  Patients' perspectives on a new delivery model in primary care: A propensity score matched analysis of patient-reported outcomes in a Dutch cohort study.

Authors:  Esther H A van den Bogaart; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Mariëlle E A L Kroese; Sofie J M van Hoof; Niels Hameleers; Dirk Ruwaard
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Adoption of New Risk Stratification Technologies Within US Hospital Referral Regions and Association With Prostate Cancer Management.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Rong Wang; Henry S Park; James B Yu; Preston C Sprenkle; Michaela A Dinan; Xiaomei Ma; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-10-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.