The Fundamental Difficulty With Evaluating the Accuracy of Biomarkers for Guiding Treatment

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 107, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Janes, Holly ^a,b   Pepe, Margaret S ^a,b   McShane, Lisa M ^c   Sargent, Daniel J ^d   Heagerty, Patrick J ^b  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; CONCEPT FORMATION; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84939602784     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv157     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Dowsett M, Goldhirsch A, Hayes DF, et al. International Web-based consultation on priorities for translational breast cancer research. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(6):R81.
2. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757-1765.
3. Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091-2096.
4. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(11):1023-1034.
5. Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, et al. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(4):253-259.
6. Sargent D, Allegra C. Issues in clinical trial design for tumor marker studies. Semin Oncol. 2002;29(3):222-230.
7. Simon R, Maitournam A. Evaluating the efficiency of targeted designs for randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(20):6759-6763.
8. Simon R. Lost in translation: problems and pitfalls in translating laboratory observations to clinical utility. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(18):2707-2713.
9. th conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2007:149-154.
10. Taube SE, Clark GM, Dancey JE, et al. A perspective on challenges and issues in biomarker development and drug and biomarker codevelopment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1453-1463.
11. Polley MY, Freidlin B, Korn EL, et al. Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(22):1677-1683.
12. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Evaluation. Guidance for Industry: Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products: Draft Guidance. In; 2012.
13. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials, Institute of Medicine. Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. 2012.
14. Huang Y, Gilbert PB, Janes H. Assessing treatment-selection markers using a potential outcomes framework. Biometrics. 2012;68(3):687-696.
15. Sitlani CM, Heagerty PJ. Analyzing longitudinal data to characterize the accuracy of markers used to select treatment. Stat Med. 2014;33(17):2881-2896.
16. Zhang Z, Nie L, Soon G, et al. The use of covariates and random effects in evaluating predictive biomarkers under a potential outcomes framework. Ann Appl Stat. 2014;8:2336-2355.
17. Neyman J. The use of covariates and random effects in evaluating predictive biomarkers under a potential outcomes framework, section 9. Translated in: Stat Sci. 1923;5:465-480.
18. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J Educ Psychol. 1974;66(5):688-701.
19. Rubin DB. Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization. Ann Stat. 1978;6:34-58
20. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55-65.
21. Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004;5(3):465-481.
22. 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(16):2509-2525.
23. Lazar AA, Cole BF, Bonetti M, et al. Evaluation of treatment-effect heterogeneity using biomarkers measured on a continuous scale: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(29):4539-4544.
24. Cai T, Tian L, Wong PH, et al. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12(2):270-282.
25. 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):4695-4708.
26. Janes H, Brown MD, Huang Y, et al. An approach to evaluating and comparing biomarkers for patient treatment selection. Int J Biostat. 2014;10(1):99-121.
27. Lu W, Zhang HH, Zeng D. Variable selection for optimal treatment decision. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(5):493-504.
28. Qian M, Murphy SA. Performance Guarantees for Individualized Treatment Rules. Ann Stat. 2011;39(2):1180-1210.
29. Zhang B, Tsiatis AA, Laber EB, et al. A robust method for estimating optimal treatment regimes. Biometrics. 2012;68(4):1010-1018.
30. Zhao Y, Zeng D, Rush AJ, et al. Estimating Individualized Treatment Rules Using Outcome Weighted Learning. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(449):1106-1118.
31. Matsouaka RA, Li J, Cai T. Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies. Biometrics. 2014; In press.
32. Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient's treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60(4):874-883.