Literature DB >> 31732971

Statistical inference for net benefit measures in biomarker validation studies.

Tracey L Marsh1, Holly Janes1, Margaret S Pepe1.   

Abstract

Referral strategies based on risk scores and medical tests are commonly proposed. Direct assessment of their clinical utility requires implementing the strategy and is not possible in the early phases of biomarker research. Prior to late-phase studies, net benefit measures can be used to assess the potential clinical impact of a proposed strategy. Validation studies, in which the biomarker defines a prespecified referral strategy, are a gold standard approach to evaluating biomarker potential. Uncertainty, quantified by a confidence interval, is important to consider when deciding whether a biomarker warrants an impact study, does not demonstrate clinical potential, or that more data are needed. We establish distribution theory for empirical estimators of net benefit and propose empirical estimators of variance. The primary results are for the most commonly employed estimators of net benefit: from cohort and unmatched case-control samples, and for point estimates and net benefit curves. Novel estimators of net benefit under stratified two-phase and categorically matched case-control sampling are proposed and distribution theory developed. Results for common variants of net benefit and for estimation from right-censored outcomes are also presented. We motivate and demonstrate the methodology with examples from lung cancer research and highlight its application to study design.
© 2019 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarker; clinical decision rule; clinical impact; clinical utility; risk prediction

Year:  2019        PMID: 31732971      PMCID: PMC7228830          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  19 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Prostate-specific-antigen testing for early diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M J Barry
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-05-03       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III).

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-05-16       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1975-07-31       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The optimal ratio of cases to controls for estimating the classification accuracy of a biomarker.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Prediction Models With Decision Curves: Guidance for Correct Interpretation and Appropriate Use.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Marshall D Brown; Kehao Zhu; Holly Janes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Predicting lung cancer prior to surgical resection in patients with lung nodules.

Authors:  Stephen A Deppen; Jeffrey D Blume; Melinda C Aldrich; Sarah A Fletcher; Pierre P Massion; Ronald C Walker; Heidi C Chen; Theodore Speroff; Catherine A Degesys; Rhonda Pinkerman; Eric S Lambright; Jonathan C Nesbitt; Joe B Putnam; Eric L Grogan
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 15.609

9.  Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Nancy R Cook; Andrew Vickers; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.483

Review 10.  Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators.

Authors:  Ben Van Calster; Laure Wynants; Jan F M Verbeek; Jan Y Verbakel; Evangelia Christodoulou; Andrew J Vickers; Monique J Roobol; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.