PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15550577

Clinical trial design for microarray predictive marker discovery and assessment.

L Pusztai·K R Hess
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Transcriptional profiling technologies that simultaneously measure the expression of thousands of mRNA species represent a powerful new clinical research tool. Similar to previous laboratory analytical methods including immunohistochemistry, PCR and in situ hybridization, this new technology may also find its niche in routine diagnostics. Outcome predictors discovered by these methods may be quite different from previous single-gene markers. These novel tests will probably combine the information embedded in the expression of multiple genes with mathematical prediction algorithms to formulate classification rules and predict outcome. The performance of machine learning-algorithm-based diagnostic tests may improve as they are trained on larger and larger sets of samples, and several generations of tests with improving accuracy may be introduced sequentially. Several gene-expression profiling-technology platforms are mature enough for clinical testing. The most important next step that is needed for further progress is the development and validation of multigene predictors in prospectively designed clinical trials to determine the true accuracy and clinical value of this new technology. This manuscript reviews methodological and statistical issues relevant to clinical trial design to discover and validate multigene predictors of response to therapy.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationGene Expression ProfilingGenetic MarkersHumansIn Situ HybridizationNeoplasmsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Pusztai, K R Hess. 2004. Clinical trial design for microarray predictive marker discovery and assessment.. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc%2Fmdh466

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2008

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗