![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
A treatment for a complicated disease might be helpful for some but not all patients, which makes predicting the treatment effect for new patients important yet challenging. Here we develop a method for predicting the treatment effect based on patient characteristics and use it for predicting the effect of the only drug (Riluzole) approved for treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Our proposed method of model-based random forests detects similarities in the treatment effect among patients and on this basis computes personalised models for new patients. The entire procedure focuses on a base model, which usually contains the treatment indicator as a single covariate and takes the survival time or a health or treatment success measurement as primary outcome. This base model is used both to grow the model-based trees within the forest, in which the patient characteristics that interact with the treatment are split variables, and to compute the personalised models, in which the similarity measurements enter as weights. We applied the personalised models using data from several clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from the Pooled Resource Open–Access Clinical Trials database. Our results indicate that some amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients benefit more from the drug Riluzole than others. Our method allows gradually shifting from stratified medicine to personalised medicine and can also be used in assessing the treatment effect for other diseases studied in a clinical trial.
References
| 1. | European Medicines Agency. Riluzole Zentiva: EPAR summary for the public, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Summary_for_the_public/human/002622/WC500127609.pdf (2012, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 2. | Atassi, N, Berry, J, Shui, A The PRO-ACT database: Design, initial analyses, and predictive features. Neurology 2014; 83: 1719–1725. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 3. | Weisberg, HI . What next for randomised clinical trials? Significance 2015; 12: 22–27. Google Scholar |
| 4. | Italiano, A . Prognostic or predictive? It’s time to get back to definitions!. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4718–4718. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 5. | Seibold, H, Zeileis, A, Hothorn, T. Model-based recursive partitioning for subgroup analyses. Int J Biostat 2016; 12: 45–63. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 6. | Ciampi, A, Negassa, A, Lou, Z. Tree-structured prediction for censored survival-data and the Cox model. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 675–689. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 7. | Kehl, V, Ulm, K. Responder identification in clinical trials with censored data. Comput Stat Data Anal 2006; 50: 1338–1355. Google Scholar |
| 8. | Dusseldorp, E, Van Mechelen, I. Qualitative interaction trees: A tool to identify qualitative treatment-subgroup interactions. Stat Med 2013; 33: 219–237. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 9. | Loh, WY, He, X, Man, M. A regression tree approach to identifying subgroups with differential treatment effects. Stat Med 2015; 34: 1818–1833. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 10. | Tian, L, Alizadeh, AA, Gentles, AJ A simple method for estimating interactions between a treatment and a large number of covariates. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 1517–1532. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 11. | Foster, JC, Taylor, JMG, Kaciroti, N Simple subgroup approximations to optimal treatment regimes from randomized clinical trial data. Biostatistics 2015; 16: 368–382. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 12. | Zhang, B, Tsiatis, AA, Davidian, M Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective. Stat 2012; 1: 103–114. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 13. | Breiman, L . Random forests. Mach Learn 2001; 45: 5–32. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 14. | Zeileis, A, Hothorn, T, Hornik, K. Model-based recursive partitioning. J Comput Graph Stat 2008; 17: 492–514. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 15. | Tutz, G . Regression for categorical data, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Google Scholar |
| 16. | Loh, WY . Regression trees with unbiased variable selection and interaction detection. Stat Sin 2002; 12: 361–386. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 17. | Hothorn T, Hornik K and Zeileis A. ctree: Conditional inference trees, Vignette R package partykit version 1.1-1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/web/packages/partykit/vignettes/ctree.pdf (2016, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 18. | Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, Van de Wiel, MA A Lego system for conditional inference. Am Stat 2006; 60: 257–263. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 19. | Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, Zeileis, A. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. J Comput Graph Stat 2006; 15: 651–674. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 20. | Zeileis, A, Hornik, K. Generalized M-fluctuation tests for parameter instability. Stat Neerland 2007; 61: 488–508. Google Scholar |
| 21. | Hothorn, T, Lausen, B, Benner, A Bagging survival trees. Stat Med 2004; 23: 77–91. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 22. | Meinshausen, N . Quantile regression forests. J Mach Learn Res 2006; 7: 983–999. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 23. | Lin, Y, Jeon, Y. Random forests and adaptive nearest neighbors. J Am Stat Assoc 2006; 101: 578–590. Google Scholar |
| 24. | Hothorn T and Zeileis A. Transformation forests. Technical Report, arXiv 1701.02110, v1, https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02110 (2017, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 25. | Hastie, T, Tibshirani, R, Friedman, J. The elements of statistical learning. 2nd ed, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009. Google Scholar |
| 26. | Strobl, C, Boulesteix, AL, Kneib, T Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinform 2008; 9: 307–307. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 27. | Brooks, BR, Sanjak, M, Ringel, S The amyotrophic lateral sclerosis functional rating scale – assessment of activities of daily living in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Archiv Neurol 1996; 53: 141–147. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 28. | Hothorn, T, Jung, HH. RandomForest4life: A random forest for predicting ALS disease progression. Amyotrop Lateral Scler Frontotemp Degen 2014; 15: 444–452. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 29. | Rosenbaum, PR, Rubin, DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41–55. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 30. | Hothorn T. TH.data: TH’s data archive, R package version 1.0-7, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TH.data (2016, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 31. | Hothorn, T, Zeileis, A. partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. J Mach Learn Res 2015; 16: 3905–3909. Google Scholar |
| 32. | Zeileis, A . Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. J Stat Softw 2004; 11: 1–17. Google Scholar |
| 33. | Zeileis, A . Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. J Stat Softw 2006; 16: 1–16. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 34. | Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in S, Version 2.40-1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival (2016, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 35. | Broström G. eha: Event history analysis, R package version 2.4-4, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=eha (2016, accessed 28 January 2017). Google Scholar |
| 36. | Wickham, H . ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2009. Google Scholar |
| 37. | R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016. Google Scholar |
| 38. | Strasser, H, Weber, C. On the asymptotic theory of permutation statistics. Mathem Method Stat 1999; 8: 220–250. Google Scholar |
| 39. | Strobl, C, Boulesteix, AL, Zeileis, A Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform 2007; 8: 25–25. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 40. | Foster, JC, Taylor, JM, Ruberg, SJ. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2867–2880. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
