ArticleContemporary clinical trials2017
Measuring differential treatment benefit across marker specific subgroups: The choice of outcome scale.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Immunotherapy in advanced kidney cancer: an alternative meta-analytic method using reconstructed survival data in case of proportional hazard assumption violation.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- A reconstructed melanoma data set for evaluating differential treatment benefit according to biomarker subgroups.Data in brief · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical and epidemiological studies of anticancer therapies increasingly seek to identify predictive biomarkers to obtain insights into variation in treatment benefit. For time to event endpoints, a predictive biomarker is typically assessed using the interaction between the biomarker and treatment in a proportional hazards model. Interactions are contrasts of summaries of outcomes and depend upon the choice of the outcome scale. In this paper, we investigate interaction contrasts under three scales - the natural logarithm of hazard ratio, the natural logarithm of survival probability, and survival probability at a pre-specified time. We illustrate that we can have a non-zero interaction on survival or logarithm of survival probability scales even when there is no interaction on the logarithm of hazard ratio scale. Since survival probabilities have clinically useful interpretation and are easier to convey to patients than hazard ratios, we recommend evaluating a predictive biomarker using survival probabilities. We provide empirical illustration of the three scales of interaction for evaluating a predictive biomarker using reconstructed data from a published melanoma study.
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.