ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2012
Clinical trial designs for testing biomarker-based personalized therapies.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances and controversies in acute decompensated heart failure treatment: beta-blocker roles, emerging devices, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Non-asymptotic Properties of Individualized Treatment Rules from Sequentially Rule-Adaptive Trials.Journal of machine learning research : JMLR · 2022Article
- Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers.Cancer treatment reviews · 2016Review
- Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.PloS one · 2016Review
- Next-generation clinical trials: Novel strategies to address the challenge of tumor molecular heterogeneity.Molecular oncology · 2015Review
- Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- Adaptive Clinical Trials: Overview of Early-Phase Designs and Challenges.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2014Article
- Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2013Article
- Group sequential designs for developing and testing biomarker-guided personalized therapies in comparative effectiveness research.Contemporary clinical trials · 2013Article
- Multicenter trials using ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET to predict chemotherapy response: effects of differential measurement error and bias on power calculations for unselected and enrichment designs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in molecular therapeutics in the past decade have opened up new possibilities for treating cancer patients with personalized therapies, using biomarkers to determine which treatments are most likely to benefit them, but there are difficulties and unresolved issues in the development and validation of biomarker-based personalized therapies. We develop a new clinical trial design to address some of these issues. The goal is to capture the strengths of the frequentist and Bayesian approaches to address this problem in the recent literature and to circumvent their limitations.
methodsWe use generalized likelihood ratio tests of the intersection null and enriched strategy null hypotheses to derive a novel clinical trial design for the problem of advancing promising biomarker-guided strategies toward eventual validation. We also investigate the usefulness of adaptive randomization (AR) and futility stopping proposed in the recent literature.
resultsSimulation studies demonstrate the advantages of testing both the narrowly focused enriched strategy null hypothesis related to validating a proposed strategy and the intersection null hypothesis that can accommodate to a potentially successful strategy. AR and early termination of ineffective treatments offer increased probability of receiving the preferred treatment and better response rates for patients in the trial, at the expense of more complicated inference under small-to-moderate total sample sizes and some reduction in power. LIMITATIONS: The binary response used in the development phase may not be a reliable indicator of treatment benefit on long-term clinical outcomes. In the proposed design, the biomarker-guided strategy (BGS) is not compared to 'standard of care', such as physician's choice that may be informed by patient characteristics. Therefore, a positive result does not imply superiority of the BGS to 'standard of care'. The proposed design and tests are valid asymptotically. Simulations are used to examine small-to-moderate sample properties.
conclusionInnovative clinical trial designs are needed to address the difficulties and issues in the development and validation of biomarker-based personalized therapies. The article shows the advantages of using likelihood inference and interim analysis to meet the challenges in the sample size needed and in the constantly evolving biomarker landscape and genomic and proteomic technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.