Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36848613›Full record

ReviewJCO precision oncology2023

Validation of Predictive Analyses for Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials.

Alejandra Avalos-Pacheco, Steffen Ventz, Andrea Arfè, Brian M Alexander, Rifaquat Rahman, Patrick Y Wen, Lorenzo Trippa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO precision oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Harmonized Estimation of Subgroup-Specific Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: The Use of External Control Data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

Alejandra Avalos-PachecoApplied Statistics Research Unit, Faculty of Mathematics and Geoinformation, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5314-1681
Steffen VentzDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.ORCID 0000-0003-2229-9560
Andrea ArfèDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-1534-0609
Brian M AlexanderDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-3903-9175
Rifaquat RahmanDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-9443-1797
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0774-7700
Lorenzo TrippaDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Statistical Methods and Validation Analyses for the Integration of External Data in Clinical TrialsR01LM013352 · NLM · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI TRIPPA, LORENZO · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdaptive clinical trials use algorithms to predict, during the study, patient outcomes and final study results. These predictions trigger interim decisions, such as early discontinuation of the trial, and can change the course of the study. Poor selection of the Prediction Analyses and Interim Decisions (PAID) plan in an adaptive clinical trial can have negative consequences, including the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or toxic treatments.

methodsWe present an approach that leverages data sets from completed trials to evaluate and compare candidate PAIDs using interpretable validation metrics. The goal is to determine whether and how to incorporate predictions into major interim decisions in a clinical trial. Candidate PAIDs can differ in several aspects, such as the prediction models used, timing of interim analyses, and potential use of external data sets. To illustrate our approach, we considered a randomized clinical trial in glioblastoma. The study design includes interim futility analyses on the basis of the predictive probability that the final analysis, at the completion of the study, will provide significant evidence of treatment effects. We examined various PAIDs with different levels of complexity to investigate if the use of biomarkers, external data, or novel algorithms improved interim decisions in the glioblastoma clinical trial.

resultsValidation analyses on the basis of completed trials and electronic health records support the selection of algorithms, predictive models, and other aspects of PAIDs for use in adaptive clinical trials. By contrast, PAID evaluations on the basis of arbitrarily defined ad hoc simulation scenarios, which are not tailored to previous clinical data and experience, tend to overvalue complex prediction procedures and produce poor estimates of trial operating characteristics such as power and the number of enrolled patients.

conclusionValidation analyses on the basis of completed trials and real world data support the selection of predictive models, interim analysis rules, and other aspects of PAIDs in future clinical trials.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationElectronic Health RecordsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID36848613
PMCPMC10166373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.