Cargando…

A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations

BACKGROUND: In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, it is desirable to divide patients into subgroups based on their expected response to treatment. This is formalised via a personalised treatment recommendation: an algorithm that uses biomarker measurements to select treatments. It coul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pierce, Matthias, Emsley, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04901-2
_version_ 1783633136043687936
author Pierce, Matthias
Emsley, Richard
author_facet Pierce, Matthias
Emsley, Richard
author_sort Pierce, Matthias
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, it is desirable to divide patients into subgroups based on their expected response to treatment. This is formalised via a personalised treatment recommendation: an algorithm that uses biomarker measurements to select treatments. It could be that multiple, rather than single, biomarkers better predict these subgroups. However, finding the optimal combination of multiple biomarkers can be a difficult prediction problem. METHODS: We described three parametric methods for finding the optimal combination of biomarkers in a personalised treatment recommendation, using randomised trial data: a regression approach that models outcome using treatment by biomarker interactions; an approach proposed by Kraemer that forms a combined measure from individual biomarker weights, calculated on all treated and control pairs; and a novel modification of Kraemer’s approach that utilises a prognostic score to sample matched treated and control subjects. Using Monte Carlo simulations under multiple data-generating models, we compare these approaches and draw conclusions based on a measure of improvement under a personalised treatment recommendation compared to a standard treatment. The three methods are applied to data from a randomised trial of home-delivered pragmatic rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (the FINE trial). Prior analysis of this data indicated some treatment effect heterogeneity from multiple, correlated biomarkers. RESULTS: The regression approach outperformed Kraemer’s approach across all data-generating scenarios. The modification of Kraemer’s approach leads to improved treatment recommendations, except in the case where there was a strong unobserved prognostic biomarker. In the FINE example, the regression method indicated a weak improvement under its personalised treatment recommendation algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The method proposed by Kraemer does not perform better than a regression approach for combining multiple biomarkers. All methods are sensitive to misspecification of the parametric models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7788953
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77889532021-01-07 A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations Pierce, Matthias Emsley, Richard Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, it is desirable to divide patients into subgroups based on their expected response to treatment. This is formalised via a personalised treatment recommendation: an algorithm that uses biomarker measurements to select treatments. It could be that multiple, rather than single, biomarkers better predict these subgroups. However, finding the optimal combination of multiple biomarkers can be a difficult prediction problem. METHODS: We described three parametric methods for finding the optimal combination of biomarkers in a personalised treatment recommendation, using randomised trial data: a regression approach that models outcome using treatment by biomarker interactions; an approach proposed by Kraemer that forms a combined measure from individual biomarker weights, calculated on all treated and control pairs; and a novel modification of Kraemer’s approach that utilises a prognostic score to sample matched treated and control subjects. Using Monte Carlo simulations under multiple data-generating models, we compare these approaches and draw conclusions based on a measure of improvement under a personalised treatment recommendation compared to a standard treatment. The three methods are applied to data from a randomised trial of home-delivered pragmatic rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (the FINE trial). Prior analysis of this data indicated some treatment effect heterogeneity from multiple, correlated biomarkers. RESULTS: The regression approach outperformed Kraemer’s approach across all data-generating scenarios. The modification of Kraemer’s approach leads to improved treatment recommendations, except in the case where there was a strong unobserved prognostic biomarker. In the FINE example, the regression method indicated a weak improvement under its personalised treatment recommendation algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The method proposed by Kraemer does not perform better than a regression approach for combining multiple biomarkers. All methods are sensitive to misspecification of the parametric models. BioMed Central 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7788953/ /pubmed/33407760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04901-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Pierce, Matthias
Emsley, Richard
A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title_full A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title_fullStr A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title_short A comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
title_sort comparison of approaches for combining predictive markers for personalised treatment recommendations
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04901-2
work_keys_str_mv AT piercematthias acomparisonofapproachesforcombiningpredictivemarkersforpersonalisedtreatmentrecommendations
AT emsleyrichard acomparisonofapproachesforcombiningpredictivemarkersforpersonalisedtreatmentrecommendations
AT piercematthias comparisonofapproachesforcombiningpredictivemarkersforpersonalisedtreatmentrecommendations
AT emsleyrichard comparisonofapproachesforcombiningpredictivemarkersforpersonalisedtreatmentrecommendations