![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The use of a quantitative treatment selection marker to choose between two treatment options requires the estimate of an optimal threshold above which one of these two treatments is preferred. Herein, the optimal threshold expression is based on the definition of a utility function which aims to quantify the expected utility of the population (e.g. life expectancy, quality of life) by taking into account both efficacy (success or failure) and toxicity of each treatment option. Therefore, the optimal threshold is the marker value that maximizes the expected utility of the population. A method modelling the marker distribution in patient subgroups defined by the received treatment and the outcome is proposed to calculate the parameters of the utility function so as to estimate the optimal threshold and its 95% credible interval using the Bayesian inference. The simulation study found that the method had low bias and coverage probability close to 95% in multiple settings, but also the need of large sample size to estimate the optimal threshold in some settings. The method is then applied to the PETACC-8 trial that compares the efficacy of chemotherapy with a combined chemotherapy + anti-epidermal growth factor receptor in stage III colorectal cancer.
References
| 1. | Ballman, K . Biomarker: predictive or prognostic?. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3968–3971. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 2. | Italiano, A . Prognostic or predictive? It’s time to get back to definitions!. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4718. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 3. | Lièvre, A, Bachet, J, Boige, V, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 374–379. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 4. | Byar, D . Assessing apparent treatment-covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1985; 4: 255–263. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 5. | Vickers, A, Kattan, M, Sargent, D. Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients. Trials 2007; 8: 14, . Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 6. | Janes, H, Pepe, M, Bossuyt, P, et al. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 253–259. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 7. | Janes, H, Brown, M, Huang, Y, et al. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat 2014; 10: 99–121. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Huang, Y, Gilbert, P, Janes, H. Assessing treatment-selection markers using a potential outcomes framework. Biometrics 2012; 68: 687–696. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 9. | Zhang, Z, Nie, L, Soon, G, et al. The use of covariates and random effects in evaluating predictive biomarkers under a potential outcome framework. Ann Appl Stat 2014; 8: 2336–2355. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 10. | Sox, H, Higgins, M, Owens, D. Medical decision making, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 11. | Janes, H, Pepe, M, Huang, Y. A framework for evaluating markers used to select patient treatment. Med Decis Making 2014; 34: 159–167. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 12. | Collins, G, Moons, K. Comparing risk prediction models. BMJ 2012; 344: e3186. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 13. | Van Calster, B, Vickers, A. Calibration of risk prediction models: impact on decision-analytic performance. Med Decis Making 2015; 35: 162–169. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 14. | Cullen, A, Frey, H. Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment, New York: Plenum Press, 1999. Google Scholar |
| 15. | Forbes, C, Evans, M, Hastings, N, et al. Statistical distributions, 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Google Scholar |
| 16. | Delignette-Muller, ML, Dutang, C. fitdistrplus: an R package for fitting distributions. J Stat Softw 2015; 64: 1–34. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 17. | Vickers, AJ, Elkin, EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565–74. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 18. | Huang, Y, Laber, E, Janes, H. Characterizing expected benefits of biomarkers in treatment selection. Biostatistics 2015; 16: 383–399. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 19. | Baker, SG, Cook, NR, Vickers, A, et al. Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009; 172: 729–748. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 20. | Efron, B, Tibshirani, R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1986; 1: 54–75. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 21. | Schisterman, E, Perkins, N. Confidence intervals of the Youden index and corresponding optimal cut-point. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2007; 36: 549–563. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 22. | Subtil, F, Rabilloud, M. A Bayesian method to estimate the optimal threshold of a longitudinal biomarker. Biom J 2010; 52: 333–347. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 23. | Subtil, F, Rabilloud, M. Estimating the optimal threshold for a diagnostic biomarker in case of complex biomarker distributions. BMC Med Inform Decis Making 2014; 14: 53. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 24. | Gelman, A, Carlin, J, Stern, H, et al. Bayesian data analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014. Google Scholar |
| 25. | R Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017. Google Scholar |
| 26. | Taieb, J, Tabernero, J, Mini, E, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab in patients with resected stage III colon cancer (PETACC-8): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 862–873. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 27. | Dmitrienko, A, Molenberghs, G, Chuang-Stein, C, et al. Analysis of clinical trials using SAS: a practical guide, Cary: SAS Institute, 2005. Google Scholar |
| 28. | Janes, H, Brown, M, Pepe, M. Designing a study to evaluate the benefit of a biomarker for selecting patient treatment. Stat Med 2015; 34: 3503–3515. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 29. | Escobar, M . Estimating normal means with a Dirichlet process prior. J Am Stat Assoc 1994; 89: 268–277. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 30. | Ohlssen, D, Sharples, L, Spiegelhalter, D. Flexible random-effects models using Bayesian semi-parametric models: applications to institutional comparisons. Stat Med 2007; 26: 2088–2112. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 31. | Blanche, P, Dartigues, JF, Jacqmin-Gadda, H. Review and comparison of ROC curve estimators for a time-dependent outcome with marker-dependent censoring. Biom J 2013; 55: 687–704. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
