Dataset Information

Pattern mixture models for clinical validation of biomarkers in the presence of missing data.

ABSTRACT: Targeted therapies for cancers are sometimes only effective in a subset of patients with a particular biomarker status. In clinical development, the biomarker status is typically determined by an investigational-use-only/laboratory-developed test. A market ready test (MRT) is developed later to meet regulatory requirements and for future commercial use. In the USA, the clinical validation of MRT showing efficacy and safety profile of the targeted therapy in the biomarker subgroups determined by MRT is needed for pre-market approval. One of the major challenges in carrying out clinical validation is that the biomarker status per MRT is often missing for many subjects. In this paper, we treat biomarker status as a missing covariate and develop a novel pattern mixture model in the setting of a proportional hazards model for the time-to-event outcome variable. We specify a multinomial regression model for the missing biomarker statuses, and develop an expectation-maximization algorithm by the Method of Weights (Ibrahim, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1990) to estimate the parameters in the regression model. We use Louis' formula (Louis, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 1982) to obtain standard errors estimates. We examine the performance of our method in extensive simulation studies and apply our method to a clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Gao F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5999041 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pattern mixture models for clinical validation of biomarkers in the presence of missing data.

Gao Fei F Dong Jun J Zeng Donglin D Rong Alan A Ibrahim Joseph G JG

Statistics in medicine 20170502 19

Targeted therapies for cancers are sometimes only effective in a subset of patients with a particular biomarker status. In clinical development, the biomarker status is typically determined by an investigational-use-only/laboratory-developed test. A market ready test (MRT) is developed later to meet regulatory requirements and for future commercial use. In the USA, the clinical validation of MRT showing efficacy and safety profile of the targeted therapy in the biomarker subgroups determined by ...[more]

PMID: 28464562

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrials with binary outcomes can be synthesised using within-trial exact likelihood or approximate normal likelihood in one-stage or two-stage approaches, respectively. The performance of the one-stage and the two-stage approaches has been documented extensively in the literature. However, little is known about how these approaches behave in the presence of missing outcome data (MOD), which are ubiquitous in clinical trials. In this work, we compare the one-stage versus two-stage approach via a pattern-mixture model in the network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods to handle MOD appropriately.MethodsWe used 29 published networks to empirically compare the two approaches concerning the relative treatment effects of several competing interventions and the between-trial variance (?2), while considering the extent and level of balance of MOD in the included trials. We additionally conducted a simulation study to compare the competing approaches regarding the bias and width of the 95% credible interval of the (summary) log odds ratios (OR) and ?2 in the presence of moderate and large MOD.ResultsThe empirical study did not reveal any systematic bias between the compared approaches regarding the log OR, but showed systematically larger uncertainty around the log OR under the one-stage approach for networks with at least one small trial or low event risk and moderate MOD. For these networks, the simulation study revealed that the bias in log OR for comparisons with the reference intervention in the network was relatively higher in the two-stage approach. Contrariwise, the bias in log OR for the remaining comparisons was relatively higher in the one-stage approach. Overall, bias increased for large MOD. For these networks, the empirical results revealed slightly higher ?2 estimates under the one-stage approach irrespective of the extent of MOD. The one-stage approach also led to less precise log OR and ?2 when compared with the two-stage approach for large MOD.ConclusionsDue to considerable bias in the log ORs overall, especially for large MOD, none of the competing approaches was superior. Until a more competent model is developed, the researchers may prefer the one-stage approach to handle MOD, while acknowledging its limitations.

Project description:BackgroundThe United Kingdom Myeloma Research Alliance (UK-MRA) Myeloma Risk Profile is a prognostic model for overall survival. It was trained and tested on clinical trial data, aiming to improve the stratification of transplant ineligible (TNE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Missing data is a common problem which affects the development and validation of prognostic models, where decisions on how to address missingness have implications on the choice of methodology.MethodsModel building The training and test datasets were the TNE pathways from two large randomised multicentre, phase III clinical trials. Potential prognostic factors were identified by expert opinion. Missing data in the training dataset was imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. Univariate analysis fitted Cox proportional hazards models in each imputed dataset with the estimates combined by Rubin's rules. Multivariable analysis applied penalised Cox regression models, with a fixed penalty term across the imputed datasets. The estimates from each imputed dataset and bootstrap standard errors were combined by Rubin's rules to define the prognostic model. Model assessment Calibration was assessed by visualising the observed and predicted probabilities across the imputed datasets. Discrimination was assessed by combining the prognostic separation D-statistic from each imputed dataset by Rubin's rules. Model validation The D-statistic was applied in a bootstrap internal validation process in the training dataset and an external validation process in the test dataset, where acceptable performance was pre-specified. Development of risk groups Risk groups were defined using the tertiles of the combined prognostic index, obtained by combining the prognostic index from each imputed dataset by Rubin's rules.ResultsThe training dataset included 1852 patients, 1268 (68.47%) with complete case data. Ten imputed datasets were generated. Five hundred twenty patients were included in the test dataset. The D-statistic for the prognostic model was 0.840 (95% CI 0.716-0.964) in the training dataset and 0.654 (95% CI 0.497-0.811) in the test dataset and the corrected D-Statistic was 0.801.ConclusionThe decision to impute missing covariate data in the training dataset influenced the methods implemented to train and test the model. To extend current literature and aid future researchers, we have presented a detailed example of one approach. Whilst our example is not without limitations, a benefit is that all of the patient information available in the training dataset was utilised to develop the model.Trial registrationBoth trials were registered; Myeloma IX- ISRCTN68454111 , registered 21 September 2000. Myeloma XI- ISRCTN49407852 , registered 24 June 2009.

Dataset Information

Pattern mixture models for clinical validation of biomarkers in the presence of missing data.

Publications

Pattern mixture models for clinical validation of biomarkers in the presence of missing data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets