Value Of New Markers Research Articles

The ALK-OBS Trial: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study Assessing the Prognostic Value of New Markers in Adults with ALK-Positive ALCL Treated By CHOEP: A Lysa Study

The ALK-OBS Trial: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study Assessing the Prognostic Value of New Markers in Adults with ALK-Positive ALCL Treated By CHOEP: A Lysa Study

Improvement Screening for Ultra-High Dimensional Data with Censored Survival Outcomes and Varying Coefficients.

Motivated by risk prediction studies with ultra-high dimensional bio markers, we propose a novel improvement screening methodology. Accurate risk prediction can be quite useful for patient treatment selection, prevention strategy or disease management in evidence-based medicine. The question of how to choose new markers in addition to the conventional ones is especially important. In the past decade, a number of new measures for quantifying the added value from the new markers were proposed, among which the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) stand out. Meanwhile, C-statistics are routinely used to quantify the capacity of the estimated risk score in discriminating among subjects with different event times. In this paper, we will examine these improvement statistics as well as the norm-based approach for evaluating the incremental values of new markers and compare these four measures by analyzing ultra-high dimensional censored survival data. In particular, we consider Cox proportional hazards models with varying coefficients. All measures perform very well in simulations and we illustrate our methods in an application to a lung cancer study.

Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies.

A potential venue to improve healthcare efficiency is to effectively tailor individualized treatment strategies by incorporating patient level predictor information such as environmental exposure, biological, and genetic marker measurements. Many useful statistical methods for deriving individualized treatment rules (ITR) have become available in recent years. Prior to adopting any ITR in clinical practice, it is crucial to evaluate its value in improving patient outcomes. Existing methods for quantifying such values mainly consider either a single marker or semi-parametric methods that are subject to bias under model misspecification. In this article, we consider a general setting with multiple markers and propose a two-step robust method to derive ITRs and evaluate their values. We also propose procedures for comparing different ITRs, which can be used to quantify the incremental value of new markers in improving treatment selection. While working models are used in step I to approximate optimal ITRs, we add a layer of calibration to guard against model misspecification and further assess the value of the ITR non-parametrically, which ensures the validity of the inference. To account for the sampling variability of the estimated rules and their corresponding values, we propose a resampling procedure to provide valid confidence intervals for the value functions as well as for the incremental value of new markers for treatment selection. Our proposals are examined through extensive simulation studies and illustrated with the data from a clinical trial that studies the effects of two drug combinations on HIV-1 infected patients.

Subgroup specific incremental value of new markers for risk prediction

In many clinical applications, understanding when measurement of new markers is necessary to provide added accuracy to existing prediction tools could lead to more cost effective disease management. Many statistical tools for evaluating the incremental value (IncV) of the novel markers over the routine clinical risk factors have been developed in recent years. However, most existing literature focuses primarily on global assessment. Since the IncVs of new markers often vary across subgroups, it would be of great interest to identify subgroups for which the new markers are most/least useful in improving risk prediction. In this paper we provide novel statistical procedures for systematically identifying potential traditional-marker based subgroups in whom it might be beneficial to apply a new model with measurements of both the novel and traditional markers. We consider various conditional time-dependent accuracy parameters for censored failure time outcome to assess the subgroup-specific IncVs. We provide non-parametric kernel-based estimation procedures to calculate the proposed parameters. Simultaneous interval estimation procedures are provided to account for sampling variation and adjust for multiple testing. Simulation studies suggest that our proposed procedures work well in finite samples. The proposed procedures are applied to the Framingham Offspring Study to examine the added value of an inflammation marker, C-reactive protein, on top of the traditional Framingham risk score for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease.

A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data

Risk prediction procedures can be quite useful for the patient's treatment selection, prevention strategy, or disease management in evidence-based medicine. Often, potentially important new predictors are available in addition to the conventional markers. The question is how to quantify the improvement from the new markers for prediction of the patient's risk in order to aid cost-benefit decisions. The standard method, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, to measure the added value may not be sensitive enough to capture incremental improvements from the new markers. Recently, some novel alternatives to area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, such as integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement, were proposed. In this paper, we consider a class of measures for evaluating the incremental values of new markers, which includes the preceding two as special cases. We present a unified procedure for making inferences about measures in the class with censored event time data. The large sample properties of our procedures are theoretically justified. We illustrate the new proposal with data from a cancer study to evaluate a new gene score for prediction of the patient's survival.

Pencina et al. Respond to "The Incremental Value of New Markers" and "Clinically Relevant Measures? A Note of Caution"

Pencina et al. Respond to "The Incremental Value of New Markers" and "Clinically Relevant Measures? A Note of Caution"

Further insight into the incremental value of new markers: the interpretation of performance measures and the importance of clinical context.

In this issue of the Journal, Pencina and et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(6):492-494) examine the operating characteristics of measures of incremental value. Their goal is to provide benchmarks for the measures that can help identify the most promising markers among multiple candidates. They consider a setting in which new predictors are conditionally independent of established predictors. In the present article, the authors consider more general settings. Their results indicate that some of the conclusions made by Pencina et al. are limited to the specific scenarios the authors considered. For example, Pencina et al. observed that continuous net reclassification improvement was invariant to the strength of the baseline model, but the authors of the present study show this invariance does not hold generally. Further, they disagree with the suggestion that such invariance would be desirable for a measure of incremental value. They also do not see evidence to support the claim that the measures provide complementary information. In addition, they show that correlation with baseline predictors can lead to much bigger gains in performance than the conditional independence scenario studied by Pencina et al. Finally, the authors note that the motivation of providing benchmarks actually reinforces previous observations that the problem with these measures is they do not have useful clinical interpretations. If they did, researchers could use the measures directly and benchmarks would not be needed.

Biological Markers of Acute Kidney Injury

An abrupt change in serum creatinine, the most common indicator of acute kidney injury (AKI), is strongly linked to poor outcomes across multiple clinical settings. Despite endless attempts to distill the magnitude and timing of a changing serum creatinine into a standardized metric, singular focus on this traditional functional marker obligates the characterization of AKI to remain, at best, retrospective and causally noninformative. The resultant inability to meaningfully segregate critical aspects of injury such as type, onset, propagation, and recovery from ongoing decrements in renal function has hindered successful translation of promising therapeutics. Over the past decade, however, the emerging field of clinical proteomics reinvigorates hope of identifying novel plasma and urine biomarkers to characterize cause and course of kidney injury. Efforts to validate these markers for use in clinical studies now show early promise but face important obstacles including interpretive difficulties inherent in using serum creatinine as a sole comparator for diagnostic performance, a need to better evaluate the incremental performance of new markers above established clinical and biochemical predictors, a relative lack of power to sufficiently examine hard clinical end points, and a potential over-reliance on use alone of receiver operating curves for assessing biomarker utility. Here, we discuss efforts to address these barriers and further ascertain the clinical value of new markers.

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables.

Suppose that we are interested in using new bio- or clinical markers, in addition to the conventional markers, to improve prediction or diagnosis of the patient's clinical outcome. The incremental value from the new markers is typically assessed by averaging across patients in the entire study population. However, when measuring the new markers is costly or invasive, an overall improvement does not justify measuring the new markers in all patients. A more practical strategy is to utilize the patient's conventional markers to decide whether the new markers are needed for improving prediction of his/her health outcomes. In this article, we propose inference procedures for the incremental values of new markers across various subgroups of patients classified by the conventional markers. The resulting point and interval estimates can be quite useful for medical decision makers seeking to balance the predictive or diagnostic value of new markers against their associated cost and risk. Our proposals are theoretically justified and illustrated empirically with two real examples.