Literature DB >> 35491401

Sample size methods for evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Kevin K Dobbin1, Lisa M McShane2.   

Abstract

Treatment selection biomarkers are those that can be useful in guiding choice of therapy. Just as new therapies require evaluation in appropriately designed clinical trials to determine their benefit, therapy selection biomarkers require evaluation in appropriately designed studies. These studies may be prospective clinical trials or retrospective studies based on specimens stored from a completed clinical trial. Ideally, patient treatment assignments should be randomized, and consideration should be given to an appropriate sample size-either for prospective planning of a new study or access to a sufficient number of stored specimens. Here, we develop a novel sample size method for estimation of a confidence interval of specified average width, for an intuitively appealing previously proposed parameter that reflects the expected benefit of using biomarker-guided therapy relative to a standard-of-care therapy. The estimation approach combines Monte Carlo and regression to result in a procedure that performs well over a range of scenarios. Although derived under a specific Cox proportional hazards regression model, robustness to model violations is demonstrated by evaluation under accelerated failure time and cure models. The sample size method produces adequate or conservative sample size estimates under a range of scenarios. Computer code in R and C++, and applications for Mac and Windows are made available for implementation of the sample size estimation procedure. The method is applied to a real data setting and results discussed.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  confidence interval; randomized clinical trials; sample size; treatment selection biomarkers

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35491401      PMCID: PMC9233020          DOI: 10.1002/sim.9412

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.497


  15 in total

1.  Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Wanseop Kim; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Drew Watson; John Bryant; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Determining the duration of comparative clinical trials while allowing for cure.

Authors:  R Sposto; H N Sather
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

4.  Development of omics-based clinical tests for prognosis and therapy selection: the challenge of achieving statistical robustness and clinical utility.

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Mei-Yin C Polley
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Margaret S Pepe; Patrick M Bossuyt; William E Barlow
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Sample size and power for a logrank test and Cox proportional hazards model with multiple groups and strata, or a quantitative covariate with multiple strata.

Authors:  John M Lachin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Edith A Perez; John A Olson; JoAnne Zujewski; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; James N Atkins; Jeffrey L Berenberg; George W Sledge
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-09-27       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets.

Authors:  M Gail; R Simon
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Characterizing expected benefits of biomarkers in treatment selection.

Authors:  Ying Huang; Eric B Laber; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.899

10.  An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Marshall D Brown; Ying Huang; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.968

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.