Finding the intended use population for a new treatment

ABSTRACT Genomic tools are demonstrating that many human diseases are molecularly heterogeneous and likely to respond differently to molecularly targeted therapeutics. For many widely used treatments, the number of patients needed to treat (NNT) for each patient who benefits is large indicating that many patients are being exposed to the risks of serious adverse effects although they do not benefit from the drug. Consequently, more accurately determining the intended use population for new therapeutics is of increased importance. In this paper, we describe a new paradigm for identifying and internally validating an estimate of the intended use population in randomized phase III clinical trials. The approach preserves the type I error of the trial and approaches determination of the intended use population as a classification problem, not a multiple hypothesis testing problems.

[1]  Guoxing Soon,et al.  Treatment evaluation for a data‐driven subgroup in adaptive enrichment designs of clinical trials , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  W. V. van Harten,et al.  Actual costs of cancer drugs in 15 European countries. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[3]  Richard Simon,et al.  Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV for Predictive Biomarkers. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  John Crowley,et al.  Developing and Validating Continuous Genomic Signatures in Randomized Clinical Trials for Predictive Medicine , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  L. Tian,et al.  Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. , 2011, Biostatistics.

[6]  R. Simon,et al.  The Cross-Validated Adaptive Signature Design , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  Soonmyung Paik,et al.  Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  C. Bokemeyer,et al.  Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  B. Thiers,et al.  Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: A Systematic Sampling Review , 2008 .

[10]  George Y H Chi,et al.  A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[12]  A. Kiss,et al.  Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. , 2007, JAMA.

[13]  R. Simon,et al.  Adaptive Signature Design: An Adaptive Clinical Trial Design for Generating and Prospectively Testing A Gene Expression Signature for Sensitive Patients , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[14]  Annette M. Molinaro,et al.  Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods , 2005, Bioinform..

[15]  P. Corey,et al.  Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients , 2012 .

[16]  J. Wittes,et al.  Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. , 1991, JAMA.

[17]  M. Gail,et al.  Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. , 1985, Biometrics.