Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Cytostatic Therapy | Research

Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials

Authors: Willi Sauerbrei, Patrick Royston

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In clinical trials, there is considerable interest in investigating whether a treatment effect is similar in all patients, or that one or more prognostic variables indicate a differential response to treatment. To examine this, a continuous predictor is usually categorised into groups according to one or more cutpoints. Several weaknesses of categorization are well known. To avoid the disadvantages of cutpoints and to retain full information, it is preferable to keep continuous variables continuous in the analysis. To handle this issue, the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) was proposed about two decades ago, followed by the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) approach. Provided individual patient data (IPD) from several studies are available, it is possible to investigate for treatment heterogeneity with meta-analysis techniques. Meta-STEPP was recently proposed and in patients with primary breast cancer an interaction of estrogen receptors with chemotherapy was investigated in eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We use data from eight randomized controlled trials in breast cancer to illustrate issues from two main tasks. The first task is to derive a treatment effect function (TEF), that is, a measure of the treatment effect on the continuous scale of the covariate in the individual studies. The second is to conduct a meta-analysis of the continuous TEFs from the eight studies by applying pointwise averaging to obtain a mean function. We denote the method metaTEF. To improve reporting of available data and all steps of the analysis we introduce a three-part profile called MethProf-MA.

Results

Although there are considerable differences between the studies (populations with large differences in prognosis, sample size, effective sample size, length of follow up, proportion of patients with very low estrogen receptor values) our results provide clear evidence of an interaction, irrespective of the choice of the FP function and random or fixed effect models.

Conclusions

In contrast to cutpoint-based analyses, metaTEF retains the full information from continuous covariates and avoids several critical issues when performing IPD meta-analyses of continuous effect modifiers in randomised trials. Early experience suggests it is a promising approach.

Trial registration

Not applicable.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP. Treating individuals 3: from subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):256–65.CrossRef Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP. Treating individuals 3: from subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):256–65.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hosmer DW. Multivariable model-building: a pragmatic approach to regression analysis based on fractional polynomials for modelling continuous variables by Royston, P. and Sauerbrei, W. Biometrics. 2008;65(3):989–90.CrossRef Hosmer DW. Multivariable model-building: a pragmatic approach to regression analysis based on fractional polynomials for modelling continuous variables by Royston, P. and Sauerbrei, W. Biometrics. 2008;65(3):989–90.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(22):3788–803.CrossRef Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(22):3788–803.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of power for several methods of analysis. Stat Med. 2014;33(27):4695–708.CrossRef Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of power for several methods of analysis. Stat Med. 2014;33(27):4695–708.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(9):949–67.CrossRef Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(9):949–67.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sauerbrei W, Royston P. A new strategy for meta-analysis of continuous covariates in observational studies. Stat Med. 2011;30(28):3341–60.CrossRef Sauerbrei W, Royston P. A new strategy for meta-analysis of continuous covariates in observational studies. Stat Med. 2011;30(28):3341–60.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kasenda B, Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Mercat A, Slutsky AS, Cook D, et al. Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction to investigate continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP for patients with ARDS. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011148.CrossRef Kasenda B, Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Mercat A, Slutsky AS, Cook D, et al. Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction to investigate continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP for patients with ARDS. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011148.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2595–609.CrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19(19):2595–609.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004;5(3):465–81.CrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004;5(3):465–81.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lazar AA, Cole BF, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Evaluation of treatment-effect heterogeneity using biomarkers measured on a continuous scale: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(29):4539–44.CrossRef Lazar AA, Cole BF, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Evaluation of treatment-effect heterogeneity using biomarkers measured on a continuous scale: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(29):4539–44.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Zapien K. Detecting an interaction between treatment and a continuous covariate: a comparison of two approaches. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2007;51(8):4054–63.CrossRef Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Zapien K. Detecting an interaction between treatment and a continuous covariate: a comparison of two approaches. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2007;51(8):4054–63.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wang XV, Cole B, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Meta-STEPP: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot for individual patient data meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35(21):3704–16.CrossRef Wang XV, Cole B, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Meta-STEPP: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot for individual patient data meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35(21):3704–16.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference White IR, Kaptoge S, Royston P, Sauerbrei W, Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Meta-analysis of non-linear exposure-outcome relationships using individual participant data: a comparison of two methods. Stat Med. 2019;38(3):326–38.CrossRef White IR, Kaptoge S, Royston P, Sauerbrei W, Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Meta-analysis of non-linear exposure-outcome relationships using individual participant data: a comparison of two methods. Stat Med. 2019;38(3):326–38.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Doré C, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337.CrossRef Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Doré C, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Sekula P, Mallett S, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178531.CrossRef Sekula P, Mallett S, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178531.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kempf E, de Beyer JA, Cook J, Holmes J, Mohammed S, Nguyên T-L, et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(10):1288–96.CrossRef Kempf E, de Beyer JA, Cook J, Holmes J, Mohammed S, Nguyên T-L, et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(10):1288–96.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):e1001216.CrossRef Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):e1001216.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, Poisson R, Bowman D, Couture J, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(8):479–84.CrossRef Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, Poisson R, Bowman D, Couture J, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(8):479–84.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–717.CrossRef Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–717.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Yi M, Huo L, Koenig KB, Mittendorf EA, Meric-Bernstam F, Kuerer HM, et al. Which threshold for ER positivity? A retrospective study based on 9639 patients. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(5):1004–11.CrossRef Yi M, Huo L, Koenig KB, Mittendorf EA, Meric-Bernstam F, Kuerer HM, et al. Which threshold for ER positivity? A retrospective study based on 9639 patients. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(5):1004–11.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.CrossRef Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 1994;43(3):429–53. Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 1994;43(3):429–53.
31.
go back to reference Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Varying-coefficient models. J R Stat Soc. 1993;55(4):757–79. Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Varying-coefficient models. J R Stat Soc. 1993;55(4):757–79.
32.
go back to reference Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, Freeman SC, Tierney JF. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ. 2017;356:j573.CrossRef Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, Freeman SC, Tierney JF. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ. 2017;356:j573.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Becher H, Lorenz E, Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Analysing covariates with spike at zero: a modified FP procedure and conceptual issues: analysing covariates with spike at zero. Biom J. 2012;54(5):686–700.CrossRef Becher H, Lorenz E, Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Analysing covariates with spike at zero: a modified FP procedure and conceptual issues: analysing covariates with spike at zero. Biom J. 2012;54(5):686–700.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Riley RD, Debray TPA, Fisher D, Hattle M, Marlin N, Hoogland J, et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates: statistical recommendations for conduct and planning. Stat Med. 2020;39(15):2115–37.CrossRef Riley RD, Debray TPA, Fisher D, Hattle M, Marlin N, Hoogland J, et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates: statistical recommendations for conduct and planning. Stat Med. 2020;39(15):2115–37.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Perperoglou A, Sauerbrei W, Abrahamowicz M, Schmid M. A review of spline function procedures in R. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):46.CrossRef Perperoglou A, Sauerbrei W, Abrahamowicz M, Schmid M. A review of spline function procedures in R. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):46.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2009;9(1):40–56.CrossRef White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2009;9(1):40–56.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Thompson S, Kaptoge S, White I, Wood A, Perry P, Danesh J, et al. Statistical methods for the time-to-event analysis of individual participant data from multiple epidemiological studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(5):1345–59.CrossRef Thompson S, Kaptoge S, White I, Wood A, Perry P, Danesh J, et al. Statistical methods for the time-to-event analysis of individual participant data from multiple epidemiological studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(5):1345–59.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Gasparrini A, Armstrong B, Kenward MG. Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations. Stat Med. 2012;31(29):3821–39.CrossRef Gasparrini A, Armstrong B, Kenward MG. Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations. Stat Med. 2012;31(29):3821–39.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Zahrieh D, Cole BF, Gelber RD. A small sample study of the STEPP approach to assessing treatment-covariate interactions in survival data. Stat Med. 2009;28(8):1255–68.CrossRef Bonetti M, Zahrieh D, Cole BF, Gelber RD. A small sample study of the STEPP approach to assessing treatment-covariate interactions in survival data. Stat Med. 2009;28(8):1255–68.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Wang XV, Cole B, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Meta-STEPP with random effects. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(2):312–7.CrossRef Wang XV, Cole B, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Meta-STEPP with random effects. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(2):312–7.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Winzer K-J, Buchholz A, Schumacher M, Sauerbrei W. Improving the prognostic ability through better use of standard clinical data - the Nottingham Prognostic Index as an example. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149977.CrossRef Winzer K-J, Buchholz A, Schumacher M, Sauerbrei W. Improving the prognostic ability through better use of standard clinical data - the Nottingham Prognostic Index as an example. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149977.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference De Bin R, Boulesteix A-L, Benner A, Becker N, Sauerbrei W. Combining clinical and molecular data in regression prediction models: insights from a simulation study. Brief Bioinform. 2020;21(6):1904–19.CrossRef De Bin R, Boulesteix A-L, Benner A, Becker N, Sauerbrei W. Combining clinical and molecular data in regression prediction models: insights from a simulation study. Brief Bioinform. 2020;21(6):1904–19.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, Schmid CH, Devasenapathy N, Hayward RA, et al. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2020;192(32):E901–6.CrossRef Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, Schmid CH, Devasenapathy N, Hayward RA, et al. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2020;192(32):E901–6.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Schandelmaier S, Chang Y, Devasenapathy N, Devji T, Kwong JSW, Colunga Lozano LE, et al. A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:159–67.CrossRef Schandelmaier S, Chang Y, Devasenapathy N, Devji T, Kwong JSW, Colunga Lozano LE, et al. A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:159–67.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials
Authors
Willi Sauerbrei
Patrick Royston
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01516-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022 Go to the issue