Dataset Information

Genomic and clinical predictors for improving estimator precision in randomized trials of breast cancer treatments.

ABSTRACT: The 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.We 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.Separate 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%.Adjusting 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.

SUBMITTER: Patil P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5935844 | biostudies-other | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genomic and clinical predictors for improving estimator precision in randomized trials of breast cancer treatments.

Patil Prasad P Colantuoni Elizabeth E Leek Jeffrey T JT Rosenblum Michael M

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20160331

<h4>Background</h4>The 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 adj ...[more]

PMID: 29736456

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical trials testing infertility treatments often do not report on the major outcomes of interest to patients and clinicians and the public (such as live birth) nor on the harms, including maternal risks during pregnancy and fetal anomalies. This is complicated by the multiple participants in infertility trials which may include a woman (mother), a man (father), and result in a third individual if successful, their offspring (child), who is also the desired outcome of treatment. The primary outcome of interest and many adverse events occur after cessation of infertility treatment and during pregnancy and the puerperium, which create a unique burden of follow-up for clinical trial investigators and participants. In 2013, because of the inconsistencies in trial reporting and the unique aspects of infertility trials not adequately addressed by existing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statements, we convened a consensus conference in Harbin, China, with the aim of planning modifications to the CONSORT checklist to improve the quality of reporting of clinical trials testing infertility treatment. The consensus group recommended that the preferred primary outcome of all infertility trials is live birth (defined as any delivery of a live infant ?20 weeks gestations) or cumulative live birth, defined as the live birth per women over a defined time period (or number of treatment cycles). In addition, harms to all participants should be systematically collected and reported, including during the intervention, any resulting pregnancy, and during the neonatal period. Routine information should be collected and reported on both male and female participants in the trial. We propose to track the change in quality that these guidelines may produce in published trials testing infertility treatments. Our ultimate goal is to increase the transparency of benefits and risks of infertility treatments to provide better medical care to affected individuals and couples.

Project description:BackgroundRestricted mean survival time is a measure of average survival time up to a specified time point. There has been an increased interest in using restricted mean survival time to compare treatment arms in randomized clinical trials because such comparisons do not rely on proportional hazards or other assumptions about the nature of the relationship between survival curves.MethodsThis article addresses the question of whether covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials that compare restricted mean survival times improves precision of the estimated treatment effect (difference in restricted mean survival times between treatment arms). Although precision generally increases in linear models when prognostic covariates are added, this is not necessarily the case in non-linear models. For example, in logistic and Cox regression, the standard error of the estimated treatment effect does not decrease when prognostic covariates are added, although the situation is complicated in those settings because the estimand changes as well. Because estimation of restricted mean survival time in the manner described in this article is also based on a model that is non-linear in the covariates, we investigate whether the comparison of restricted mean survival times with adjustment for covariates leads to a reduction in the standard error of the estimated treatment effect relative to the unadjusted estimator or whether covariate adjustment provides no improvement in precision. Chen and Tsiatis suggest that precision will increase if covariates are chosen judiciously. We present results of simulation studies that compare unadjusted versus adjusted comparisons of restricted mean survival time between treatment arms in randomized clinical trials.ResultsWe find that for comparison of restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for covariates that are associated with survival increases precision and therefore statistical power, relative to the unadjusted estimator. Omitting important covariates results in less precision but estimates remain unbiased.ConclusionWhen comparing restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for prognostic covariates can improve precision and increase power.

Dataset Information

Genomic and clinical predictors for improving estimator precision in randomized trials of breast cancer treatments.

Publications

Genomic and clinical predictors for improving estimator precision in randomized trials of breast cancer treatments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets