A Simulation Study Comparing Different Statistical Approaches for the Identification of Predictive Biomarkers

Identification of relevant biomarkers that are associated with a treatment effect is one requirement for adequate treatment stratification and consequently to improve health care by administering the best available treatment to an individual patient. Various statistical approaches were proposed that allow assessing the interaction between a continuous covariate and treatment. Nevertheless, categorization of a continuous covariate, e.g., by splitting the data at the observed median value, appears to be very prevalent in practice. In this article, we present a simulation study considering data as observed in a randomized clinical trial with a time-to-event outcome performed to compare properties of such approaches, namely, Cox regression with linear interaction, Multivariable Fractional Polynomials for Interaction (MFPI), Local Partial-Likelihood Bootstrap (LPLB), and the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) method, and of strategies based on categorization of continuous covariates (splitting the covariate at the median, splitting at quartiles, and using an “optimal” split by maximizing a corresponding test statistic). In different scenarios with no interactions, linear interactions or nonlinear interactions, type I error probability and the power for detection of a true covariate-treatment interaction were estimated. The Cox regression approach was more efficient than the other methods for scenarios with monotonous interactions, especially when the number of observed events was small to moderate. When patterns of the biomarker-treatment interaction effect were more complex, MFPI and LPLB performed well compared to the other approaches. Categorization of data generally led to a loss of power, but for very complex patterns, splitting the data into multiple categories might help to explore the nature of the interaction effect. Consequently, we recommend application of statistical methods developed for assessment of interactions between continuous biomarkers and treatment instead of arbitrary or data-driven categorization of continuous covariates.

[1]  S. Pocock,et al.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Willi Sauerbrei,et al.  Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of power for several methods of analysis , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Thomas M. Loughin,et al.  A residual bootstrap for regression parameters in proportional hazards models , 1995 .

[4]  James J. Chen,et al.  Predictive biomarkers for treatment selection: statistical considerations. , 2015, Biomarkers in medicine.

[5]  W. Hacke,et al.  30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[6]  P. Grambsch,et al.  A Package for Survival Analysis in S , 1994 .

[7]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. , 1994, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  P. Royston,et al.  A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[10]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Matthew J. Selleck,et al.  Making Meaningful Clinical Use of Biomarkers , 2017, Biomarker insights.

[12]  Katherine Karakasis,et al.  Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[13]  Glen Reid,et al.  An Update on Predictive Biomarkers for Treatment Selection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2018, Journal of clinical medicine.

[14]  P. Royston,et al.  Interactions between treatment and continuous covariates: a step toward individualizing therapy. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Marco Bonetti,et al.  Identifying treatment effect heterogeneity in clinical trials using subpopulations of events: STEPP , 2016, Clinical trials.

[16]  I. Lipkovich,et al.  Tutorial in biostatistics: data‐driven subgroup identification and analysis in clinical trials , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Bingshu E. Chen,et al.  Testing for treatment‐biomarker interaction based on local partial‐likelihood , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Michael den Bakker,et al.  Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer. A review , 2014, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  K. Ballman,et al.  Biomarker: Predictive or Prognostic? , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Kenneth P.H. Pritzker,et al.  Predictive and prognostic cancer biomarkers revisited , 2015, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[21]  W. Hacke,et al.  Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial , 2008, The Lancet Neurology.

[22]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: Stratified medicine research , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  A. Dreher Modeling Survival Data Extending The Cox Model , 2016 .

[24]  M. Bonetti,et al.  A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Anne-Laure Boulesteix,et al.  A Plea for Neutral Comparison Studies in Computational Sciences , 2012, PloS one.

[26]  B. Freidlin,et al.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  Xin Victoria Wang,et al.  Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) analysis for continuous, binary, and count outcomes , 2016, Clinical trials.

[28]  S. Assmann,et al.  Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials , 2000, The Lancet.

[29]  K. Strimbu,et al.  What are biomarkers? , 2010, Current opinion in HIV and AIDS.

[30]  D.,et al.  Regression Models and Life-Tables , 2022 .

[31]  D. Altman,et al.  Analysis by Categorizing or Dichotomizing Continuous Variables Is Inadvisable: An Example from the Natural History of Unruptured Aneurysms , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[32]  Katherine Karakasis,et al.  Outcomes and endpoints in cancer trials: bridging the divide. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[33]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[34]  P. Royston,et al.  Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. , 1994 .

[35]  Marco Bonetti,et al.  Another STEPP in the right direction. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[36]  Melanie Boerries,et al.  Personalized Clinical Decision Making Through Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: A German Single-Center Experience , 2018, JCO precision oncology.

[37]  Jacob Cohen The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

[38]  T. Friede,et al.  Methods for identification and confirmation of targeted subgroups in clinical trials: A systematic review , 2016, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[39]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Two Techniques for Investigating Interactions between Treatment and Continuous Covariates in Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[40]  Werner Vach,et al.  Regression Models as a Tool in Medical Research , 2012 .

[41]  Lu Tian,et al.  A Simple Method for Detecting Interactions between a Treatment and a Large Number of Covariates , 2012, 1212.2995.

[42]  W. Robinson,et al.  Biomarkers to guide clinical therapeutics in rheumatology? , 2016, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[43]  W. Hacke,et al.  30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[44]  Jianqing Fan,et al.  Local partial-likelihood estimation for lifetime data , 2006, math/0605511.

[45]  N S El Saghir,et al.  4th ESO–ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)† , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[46]  Kurt Ulm,et al.  Investigation of age–treatment interaction in the SPACE trial using different statistical approaches , 2019, Journal of Applied Statistics.

[47]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[48]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Multivariable Model-Building: A Pragmatic Approach to Regression Analysis based on Fractional Polynomials for Modelling Continuous Variables , 2008 .

[49]  P Baas,et al.  2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: non-small-cell lung cancer first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease. , 2014, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[50]  Marco Bonetti,et al.  A small sample study of the STEPP approach to assessing treatment–covariate interactions in survival data , 2009, Statistics in medicine.