Dataset Information

An Application of the Patient Rule-Induction Method to Detect Clinically Meaningful Subgroups from Failed Phase III Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Phase III superiority clinical trials have negative results (new treatment is not statistically better than standard of care) due to a number of factors, including patient and disease heterogeneity. However, even a treatment regime that fails to show population-level clinical improvement will have a subgroup of patients that attain a measurable clinical benefit.

Objective

The goal of this paper is to modify the Patient Rule-Induction Method to identify statistically significant subgroups, defined by clinical and/or demographic factors, of the clinical trial population where the experimental treatment performs better than the standard of care and better than observed in the entire clinical trial sample.

Results

We illustrate this method using part A of the SUCCESS clinical trial, which showed no overall difference between treatment arms: HR (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.78, 1.20). Using PRIM, we identified one subgroup defined by the mutational profile in BRCA1 which resulted in a significant benefit for adding Gemcitabine to the standard treatment: HR (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.40, 0.87).

Conclusion

This result demonstrates that useful information can be extracted from existing databases that could provide insight into why a phase III trial failed and assist in the design of future clinical trials involving the experimental treatment.

SUBMITTER: Dyson G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496893 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of the Wells rule for excluding deep vein thrombosis and whether this accuracy applies to different subgroups of patients.DesignMeta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sourcesAuthors of 13 studies (n = 10,002) provided their datasets, and these individual patient data were merged into one dataset.Eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible if they enrolled consecutive outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis, scored all variables of the Wells rule, and performed an appropriate reference standard.Main outcome measuresMultilevel logistic regression models, including an interaction term for each subgroup, were used to estimate differences in predicted probabilities of deep vein thrombosis by the Wells rule. In addition, D-dimer testing was added to assess differences in the ability to exclude deep vein thrombosis using an unlikely score on the Wells rule combined with a negative D-dimer test result.ResultsOverall, increasing scores on the Wells rule were associated with an increasing probability of having deep vein thrombosis. Estimated probabilities were almost twofold higher in patients with cancer, in patients with suspected recurrent events, and (to a lesser extent) in males. An unlikely score on the Wells rule (≤ 1) combined with a negative D-dimer test result was associated with an extremely low probability of deep vein thrombosis (1.2%, 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 1.8%). This combination occurred in 29% (95% confidence interval 20% to 40%) of patients. These findings were consistent in subgroups defined by type of D-dimer assay (quantitative or qualitative), sex, and care setting (primary or hospital care). For patients with cancer, the combination of an unlikely score on the Wells rule and a negative D-dimer test result occurred in only 9% of patients and was associated with a 2.2% probability of deep vein thrombosis being present. In patients with suspected recurrent events, only the modified Wells rule (adding one point for the previous event) is safe.ConclusionCombined with a negative D-dimer test result (both quantitative and qualitative), deep vein thrombosis can be excluded in patients with an unlikely score on the Wells rule. This finding is true for both sexes, as well as for patients presenting in primary and hospital care. In patients with cancer, the combination is neither safe nor efficient. For patients with suspected recurrent disease, one extra point should be added to the rule to enable a safe exclusion.

Project description:A dataset range of isocenter congruency verification tests have been examined from a statistical perspective for the purpose of establishing tolerance levels that are meaningful, based on the fundamental limitation of linear accelerator isocentricity and the demands of a high-precision stereotactic radiosurgery program. Using a laser-defined isocenter, a total of 149 individual isocenter congruency tests were examined with recorded values for ideal spatial corrections to the isocenter test tool. These spatial corrections were determined from radiation exposures recorded on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) at various gantry, collimator, and treatment couch combinations. The limitations of establishing an ideal isocenter were quantified from each variable which contributed to uncertainty in isocenter definition. Individual contributors to uncertainty, specifically, daily positioning setup errors, gantry sag, multileaf collimator (MLC) offset, and couch walkout, were isolated from isocenter congruency measurements to determine a clinically meaningful isocenter measurement. Variations in positioning of the test tool constituted, on average, 0.38 mm magnitude of correction. Gantry sag and MLC offset contributed 0.4 and 0.16 mm, respectively. Couch walkout had an average degrading effect to isocenter of 0.72 mm. Considering the magnitude of uncertainty contributed by each uncertainty variable and the nature of their combination, an appropriate schedule action and immediate action level were determined for use in analyzing daily isocenter congruency test results in a stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program. The recommendations of this study for this linear accelerator include a schedule action level of 1.25 mm and an immediate action level of 1.50mm, requiring prompt correction response from clinical medical physicists before SRS or stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) is administered. These absolute values were derived from considering relative data from a specific linear accelerator and, therefore, represent a means by which a numerical quantity can be used as a test threshold with relative specificity to a particular linear accelerator.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial investigators may need to evaluate treatment effects in a specific subgroup (or subgroups) of participants in addition to reporting results of the entire study population. Such subgroups lack power to detect a treatment effect, but there may be strong justification for borrowing information from a larger patient group within the same trial, while allowing for differences between populations. Our aim was to develop methods for eliciting expert opinions about differences in treatment effect between patient populations, and to incorporate these opinions into a Bayesian analysis.MethodsWe used an interaction parameter to model the relationship between underlying treatment effects in two subgroups. Elicitation was used to obtain clinical opinions on the likely values of the interaction parameter, since this parameter is poorly informed by the data. Feedback was provided to experts to communicate how uncertainty about the interaction parameter corresponds with relative weights allocated to subgroups in the Bayesian analysis. The impact on the planned analysis was then determined.ResultsThe methods were applied to an ongoing non-inferiority trial designed to compare antiretroviral therapy regimens in 707 children living with HIV and weighing ≥ 14 kg, with an additional group of 85 younger children weighing < 14 kg in whom the treatment effect will be estimated separately. Expert clinical opinion was elicited and demonstrated that substantial borrowing is supported. Clinical experts chose on average to allocate a relative weight of 78% (reduced from 90% based on sample size) to data from children weighing ≥ 14 kg in a Bayesian analysis of the children weighing < 14 kg. The total effective sample size in the Bayesian analysis was 386 children, providing 84% predictive power to exclude a difference of more than 10% between arms, whereas the 85 younger children weighing < 14 kg provided only 20% power in a standalone frequentist analysis.ConclusionsBorrowing information from a larger subgroup or subgroups can facilitate estimation of treatment effects in small subgroups within a clinical trial, leading to improved power and precision. Informative prior distributions for interaction parameters are required to inform the degree of borrowing and can be informed by expert opinion. We demonstrated accessible methods for obtaining opinions.