Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sep 2016

Background: The subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) is an appealing method for assessing the clinical impact of a predictive marker on patient outcomes and identifying a promising subgroup for further study. However, its original formulation lacked a decision analytic justification and applied only to a single marker.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-pdf/108/9/djw101/24366540/djw101.pdf

Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment

JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst ( Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment Stuart G. Baker 0 Marco Bonetti 0 0 Affiliations of authors: Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute , Bethesda, MD (SGB); Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policies and Bocconi University , Milan, Italy, MB Background: The subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) is an appealing method for assessing the clinical impact of a predictive marker on patient outcomes and identifying a promising subgroup for further study. However, its original formulation lacked a decision analytic justification and applied only to a single marker. Methods: We derive a decision-analytic result that motivates STEPP. We discuss the incorporation of multiple predictive markers into STEPP using risk difference, cadit, and responders-only benefit functions. Results: Applying STEPP to data from a breast cancer treatment trial with multiple markers, we found that none of the three benefit functions identified a promising subgroup for further study. Applying STEPP to hypothetical data from a trial with 100 markers, we found that all three benefit functions identified promising subgroups as evidenced by the large statistically significant treatment effect in these subgroups. Conclusions: Because the method has desirable decision-analytic properties and yields an informative plot, it is worth applying to randomized trials on the chance there is a large treatment effect in a subgroup determined by the predictive markers. - As early as 1977, Byar and Corle ( 1 ) noted that models incorporating baseline variables “made it possible to change the center of interest from the question ‘which treatment is best’ to ‘which treatment is best for which kinds of patients’.” In current terminology, these baseline variables are called predictive markers ( 2,3 ). A standard approach for evaluating predictive markers involves testing the association between outcome and the marker-treatment interaction ( 4,5 ). Recent approaches discussed in the Journal include novel definitions of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive values ( 6 ) and treatment-specific plots for the estimated probability of outcome vs the marker ( 7 ). A recent Journal editorial ( 8 ) proposed evaluating the additional benefit of a new marker relative to existing markers, an extension requiring a multiple marker formulation. We present an alternative approach to evaluating predictive markers that involves a simple graphical display with confidence intervals and can include multiple markers. Methods Decision Analytic Foundation The use of predictive markers for guiding treatment usually involves marker-based treatment selection: Administer the new treatment if the marker exceeds a cutpoint s, and administer the old treatment (standard of care) otherwise. To characterize the net benefit (benefit minus harm) of marker-based treatment selection, we combine the additive utility model of Vickers, Kattan, and Sargent ( 9 ) with a decision analysis for predictive markers ( 10 ). For binary outcomes, let DIF(s) denote the difference in the probabilities of a favorable outcome for new vs old Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States. treatment, conditional on the marker exceeding cutpoint s. Let Frac(s) denote the fraction of the population with the marker exceeding cutpoint s. As derived in the Supplementary Materials (available online), the net benefit equation is ðNet benefit of marker–based treatment selection at cutpoint sÞ ¼ ðNet benefit of the old treatmentÞ þ ðDIFðsÞ - HÞ B FracðsÞ; ( 1 ) where B is the increased benefit of a favorable over an unfavorable outcome and H is the increased benefit of new vs old treatment that counterbalances any additional harm from side effects of the new treatment. The key role of DIF(s) in the net benefit equation provides new motivation for the tail-oriented version of the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot of Bonetti and Gelber ( 11,12 ). We use the acronym STEPP to refer to the tail-oriented version of the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot although STEPP generally also applies to another version. In its original formulation, STEPP graphs an estimate of DIF(s) vs the median of the values of the marker that exceeds s. For this implementation related to decision analysis, STEPP graphs an estimate of DIF(s) vs either s or a quantile of s. The estimate of DIF(s) could be a difference in the fractions with favorable outcome for binary endpoints or a difference in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at a prespecified time point for survival outcomes. Typically, as s increases, the estimate of DIF(s) and the width of its confidence interval increase. Accounting for the variability in estimation, we define the optimal cutpoint as the smallest value of cutpo (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-pdf/108/9/djw101/24366540/djw101.pdf

Baker, Stuart G., Bonetti, Marco. Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016, Volume 108, Issue 9, DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw101