Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26112650›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2015

Designing a study to evaluate the benefit of a biomarker for selecting patient treatment.

Holly Janes, Marshall D Brown, Margaret S Pepe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Holly JanesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
Marshall D BrownFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
Margaret S PepeFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

Funding

Statistical Methods for Medical Tests and BiomarkersR01GM054438 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PEPE, MARGARET S. · 1996 to 2015
$4.7M
Statistical Methods for Evaluating Markers for Treatment SelectionR01CA152089 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI JANES, HOLLY · 2010 to 2021
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152089NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM054438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarkers that predict the efficacy of treatment can potentially improve clinical outcomes and decrease medical costs by allowing treatment to be provided only to those most likely to benefit. We consider the design of a randomized clinical trial in which one objective is to evaluate a treatment selection marker. The marker may be measured prospectively or retrospectively using samples collected at baseline. We describe and contrast criteria around which the trial can be designed. An existing approach focuses on determining if there is a statistical interaction between the marker and treatment. We propose three alternative approaches based on estimating clinically relevant measures of improvement in outcomes with use of the marker. Importantly, our approaches accommodate the common scenario in which the marker-based rule for recommending treatment is developed with data from the trial. Sample sizes are calculated for powering a trial to assess these criteria in the context of adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of estrogen-receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer. In this example, we find that larger sample sizes are generally required for assessing clinical impact than for simply evaluating if there is a statistical interaction between marker and treatment. We also find that retrospectively selecting a case-control subset of subjects for marker evaluation can lead to large efficiency gains, especially if cases and controls are matched on treatment assignment.

Indexed as

BiomarkersPatient SelectionResearch DesignBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersbiomarkerpredictive markerrandomized controlled trialstatistical interactionstudy designtreatment selection

Identifiers

PMID26112650
PMCPMC4626364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.