Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Constructing treatment selection rules based on an estimated treatment effect function: different approaches to take stochastic uncertainty into account have a substantial effect on performance

Authors: Maren Eckert, Werner Vach

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Today we are often interested in the predictive value of a continuous marker with respect to the expected difference in outcome between a new treatment and a standard treatment. We can investigate this in a randomized control trial, allowing us to assess interactions between treatment and marker and to construct a treatment selection rule. A first step is often to estimate the treatment effect as a function of the marker value. A variety of approaches have been suggested for the second step to define explicitly the rule to select the treatment, varying in the way to take uncertainty into account. Little is known about the merits of the different approaches.

Methods

Four construction principles for the second step are compared. They are based on the root of the estimated function, on confidence intervals for the root, or on pointwise or simultaneous confidence bands. All of them have been used implicitly or explicitly in the literature. As performance characteristics we consider the probability to select at least some patients, the probability to classify patients with and without a benefit correctly, and the gain in expected outcome at the population level. These characteristics are investigated in a simulation study.

Results

As to be expected confidence interval/band based approaches reduce the risk to select patients who do not benefit from the new treatment, but they tend to overlook patients who can benefit. Simply using positivity of the estimated treatment effect function for selection implies often a larger gain in expected outcome.

Conclusions

The use of 95% confidence intervals/bands in constructing treatment selection rules is a rather conservative approach. There is a need for better construction principles for treatment selection rules aiming to maximize the gain in expected outcome at the population level. Choosing a confidence level of 80% may be a first step in this direction.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mackey HM, Bengtsson T. Sample size and threshold estimation for clinical trials with predictive biomarkers. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 36:664–72.CrossRef Mackey HM, Bengtsson T. Sample size and threshold estimation for clinical trials with predictive biomarkers. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 36:664–72.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Janes H, Brown MD, Huang Y, Pepe MS. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat. 2014; 10(1):99–121.CrossRef Janes H, Brown MD, Huang Y, Pepe MS. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat. 2014; 10(1):99–121.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Riddell CA, Zhao Y, Petkau J. An adaptive clinical trials procedure for a sensitive subgroup examined in the multiple sclerosis context. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25(4):1330–45.CrossRef Riddell CA, Zhao Y, Petkau J. An adaptive clinical trials procedure for a sensitive subgroup examined in the multiple sclerosis context. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25(4):1330–45.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004; 5:465–81.CrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004; 5:465–81.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Royston P, Sauerbrei W. A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials. Stat Med. 2004; 23:2509–25.CrossRef Royston P, Sauerbrei W. A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials. Stat Med. 2004; 23:2509–25.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jeong JH, Costantino JP. Application of smoothing methods to evaluate treatment-prognostic factor interactions in breast cancer data. Cancer Investig. 2006; 24:288–93.CrossRef Jeong JH, Costantino JP. Application of smoothing methods to evaluate treatment-prognostic factor interactions in breast cancer data. Cancer Investig. 2006; 24:288–93.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, Wei LJ. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011; 12:270–82.CrossRef Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, Wei LJ. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011; 12:270–82.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Shen Y, Le LD, Wilson R, Mansmann U. Graphical presentation of patient-treatment interaction elucidated by continuous biomarkers. Methods Inf Med. 2017; 56(1):13–27.CrossRef Shen Y, Le LD, Wilson R, Mansmann U. Graphical presentation of patient-treatment interaction elucidated by continuous biomarkers. Methods Inf Med. 2017; 56(1):13–27.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Baker SG, Bonetti M. Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(9):djw101.CrossRef Baker SG, Bonetti M. Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(9):djw101.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Baker SG, Kramer BS. Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(4):299–308.CrossRef Baker SG, Kramer BS. Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(4):299–308.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ma Y, Zhou X. Treatment selection in a randomized clinical trial via covariate-specific treatment effect curves. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(1):124–41.CrossRef Ma Y, Zhou X. Treatment selection in a randomized clinical trial via covariate-specific treatment effect curves. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26(1):124–41.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sun H, Vach W. A framework to assess the value of subgroup analyses when the overall treatment effect is significant. J Biopharm Stat. 2016; 26(3):565–78.CrossRef Sun H, Vach W. A framework to assess the value of subgroup analyses when the overall treatment effect is significant. J Biopharm Stat. 2016; 26(3):565–78.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chen BE, Jiang W, Tu D. A hierarchical bayes model for biomarker subset effects in clinical trials. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014; 71:324–34.CrossRef Chen BE, Jiang W, Tu D. A hierarchical bayes model for biomarker subset effects in clinical trials. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014; 71:324–34.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Jiang W, Freidlin B, Simon R. Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: A procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99:1036–43.CrossRef Jiang W, Freidlin B, Simon R. Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: A procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99:1036–43.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004; 60:874–83.CrossRef Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004; 60:874–83.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Constructing treatment selection rules based on an estimated treatment effect function: different approaches to take stochastic uncertainty into account have a substantial effect on performance
Authors
Maren Eckert
Werner Vach
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0805-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue