ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2016
Genomic and clinical predictors for improving estimator precision in randomized trials of breast cancer treatments.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe hope that genomic biomarkers would dramatically and immediately improve care for common, complex diseases has been tempered by slow progress in their translation beyond bioinformatics. We propose a novel use of genomic information where the goal is to improve estimator precision in a randomized trial. We analyze the potential precision gains from the popular MammaPrint genomic signature and clinical variables in simulations of randomized trials analyzed using covariate adjustment.
methodsWe apply an estimator for the average treatment effect in the trial that adjusts for prognostic baseline variables to improve precision [1]. This precision gain can be translated directly into sample size reduction and corresponding cost savings. We conduct simulation studies based on resampling genomic and clinical data of breast cancer patients from four publicly available observational studies.
resultsSeparate simulation studies were conducted based on each of the four data sets, with sample sizes ranging from 115 to 307. Adjusting only for clinical variables provided gains of -1%, 5%, 6%, 17%, compared to the unadjusted estimator. Adjusting only for the MammaPrint genomic signature provided gains of 2%, 4%, 4%, 5%. Simultaneously adjusting for clinical variables and the genomic signature provided gains of 2%, 6%, 7%, 16%. The differences between precision gains from adjusting for genomic plus clinical variables, versus only clinical variables, were -1%, 0%, 1%, 3%.
conclusionsAdjusting only for clinical variables led to substantial precision gains (at least 5%) in three of the four data sets, with a 1% precision loss in the remaining data set. These gains were unchanged or increased when sample sizes were doubled in our simulations. The precision gains due to incorporating genomic information, beyond the gains from adjusting for clinical variables, were not substantial.
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.