Stuart G Baker1. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies to validate a cancer prediction model based on cancer screening markers collected in stored specimens from asymptomatic persons typically require large specimen collection sample sizes. A standard sample size calculation targets a true-positive rate (TPR) of 0.8 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.7 at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 0.01 with a 5% upper bound of 0.03. If the probability of developing cancer during the study is P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the standard calculation is 7600. METHODS: The strategy to reduce the specimen collection sample size is to decrease both the lower bound of TPR and the upper bound of FPR while keeping a positive lower bound on the anticipated clinical utility. RESULTS: The new sample size calculation targets a TPR of 0.4 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.10 and an FPR of 0.0 with a 5% upper bound of 0.005. With P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the new calculation is 1800 instead of 7600. LIMITATIONS: The new sample size calculation requires a minimum benefit/cost ratio (number of false positives traded for a true positive). With P = 0.01, the minimum cost-benefit ratio is 5, which is plausible in many studies. CONCLUSION: In validation studies for cancer screening markers, the strategy can substantially reduce the specimen collection sample size, substantially reducing costs and making some otherwise infeasible studies now feasible.
BACKGROUND: Studies to validate a cancer prediction model based on cancer screening markers collected in stored specimens from asymptomatic persons typically require large specimen collection sample sizes. A standard sample size calculation targets a true-positive rate (TPR) of 0.8 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.7 at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 0.01 with a 5% upper bound of 0.03. If the probability of developing cancer during the study is P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the standard calculation is 7600. METHODS: The strategy to reduce the specimen collection sample size is to decrease both the lower bound of TPR and the upper bound of FPR while keeping a positive lower bound on the anticipated clinical utility. RESULTS: The new sample size calculation targets a TPR of 0.4 with a 2.5% lower bound of 0.10 and an FPR of 0.0 with a 5% upper bound of 0.005. With P = 0.01, the specimen collection sample size based on the new calculation is 1800 instead of 7600. LIMITATIONS: The new sample size calculation requires a minimum benefit/cost ratio (number of false positives traded for a true positive). With P = 0.01, the minimum cost-benefit ratio is 5, which is plausible in many studies. CONCLUSION: In validation studies for cancer screening markers, the strategy can substantially reduce the specimen collection sample size, substantially reducing costs and making some otherwise infeasible studies now feasible.
Entities:
Keywords:
biomarker; cancer; early detection; sample size; study design
Authors: M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Suresh T Chari; Cynthia L Leibson; Kari G Rabe; Jeanine Ransom; Mariza de Andrade; Gloria M Petersen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Kelly Yu; Barnett S Kramer; Amanda Black; Saundra S Buys; Edward Partridge; John Gohagan; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Matthew R Young; Paul D Wagner; Sharmistha Ghosh; Jo Ann Rinaudo; Stuart G Baker; Kenneth S Zaret; Michael Goggins; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: Pancreas Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Usha Menon; Andy Ryan; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Anne Dawnay; Mariam Habib; Sophia Apostolidou; Naveena Singh; Elizabeth Benjamin; Matthew Burnell; Susan Davies; Aarti Sharma; Richard Gunu; Keith Godfrey; Alberto Lopes; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Howard Jenkins; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John B Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Ian Scott; Lesley Fallowfield; Martin Widschwendter; Karina Reynolds; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Mahesh Parmar; Steven J Skates; Ian Jacobs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kwang Hyuck Lee; Eun Young Kim; Juhee Cho; Danbee Kang; Seungmin Bang; Hyung Kil Kim; Gwang Ha Kim; Hyun Jong Choi; Joung-Ho Han; Seong Woo Jeon; Ji Kon Ryu; Jeong Seop Moon; Tae Hee Lee; Jin Woong Cho; Tae Hyeon Kim; Young Koog Cheon; Chang-Hwan Park; Jong Kyun Lee; Jong Ho Moon; Chang Min Cho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240