Abstract

BackgroundCancer treatment is increasingly dependent on biomarkers for prognostication and treatment selection. Potential biomarkers are frequently evaluated in prospective-retrospective studies in which biomarkers are measured retrospectively on archived specimens after completion of prospective clinical trials. In light of the high costs of some assays, random sampling designs have been proposed that measure biomarkers for a random sub-sample of subjects selected on the basis of observed outcome and possibly other variables. Compared with a standard design that measures biomarkers on all subjects, a random sampling design can be cost-efficient in the sense of reducing the cost of the study substantially while achieving a reasonable level of precision.MethodsFor a biomarker that indicates the presence of some molecular alteration (e.g., mutation in a gene), we explore the use of a group testing strategy, which involves physically pooling specimens across subjects and assaying pooled samples for the presence of the molecular alteration of interest, for further improvement in cost-efficiency beyond random sampling. We propose simple and general approaches to estimating the prognostic and predictive values of biomarkers with group testing, and conduct simulation studies to validate the proposed estimation procedures and to assess the cost-efficiency of the group testing design in comparison to the standard and random sampling designs.ResultsSimulation results show that the proposed estimation procedures perform well in realistic settings and that a group testing design can have considerably higher cost-efficiency than a random sampling design.ConclusionsGroup testing can be used to improve the cost-efficiency of biomarker studies.

Highlights

  • Cancer treatment is increasingly dependent on biomarkers for prognostication and treatment selection

  • Group testing In this article, we explore the use of group testing (GT) to further improve the cost-efficiency of P-R studies when the biomarker of interest indicates the presence of some molecular alteration

  • It is worth noting that the GT designs attain much higher levels of relative cost-efficiency (1.65–1.79 for GT-2; 1.94–2.40 for GT-3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cancer treatment is increasingly dependent on biomarkers for prognostication and treatment selection. In light of the high costs of some assays, random sampling designs have been proposed that measure biomarkers for a random subsample of subjects selected on the basis of observed outcome and possibly other variables. Compared with a standard design that measures biomarkers on all subjects, a random sampling design can be cost-efficient in the sense of reducing the cost of the study substantially while achieving a reasonable level of precision. A predictive biomarker must be prognostic for at least one of the two treatments being compared. A prognostic biomarker does not need to be predictive. Both types of biomarker are of great interest in contemporary clinical research and practice

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.