» Articles » PMID: 27661007

Strategies for Power Calculations in Predictive Biomarker Studies in Survival Data

Overview
Journal Oncotarget
Specialty Oncology
Date 2016 Sep 24
PMID 27661007
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Biomarkers and genomic signatures represent potentially predictive tools for precision medicine. Validation of predictive biomarkers in prospective or retrospective studies requires statistical justification of power and sample size. However, the design of these studies is complex and the statistical methods and associated software are limited, especially in survival data. Herein, we address common statistical design issues relevant to these two types of studies and provide guidance and a general template for analysis.

Methods: A statistical interaction effect in the Cox proportional hazards model is used to describe predictive biomarkers. The analytic form by Peterson et al. and Lachin is utilized to calculate the statistical power for both prospective and retrospective studies.

Results: We demonstrate that the common mistake of using only Hazard Ratio's Ratio (HRR) or two hazard ratios (HRs) can mislead power calculations. We establish that the appropriate parameter settings for prospective studies require median survival time (MST) in 4 subgroups (treatment and control in positive biomarker, treatment and control in negative biomarker). For the retrospective study which has fixed survival time and censored status, we develop a strategy to harmonize the hypothesized parameters and the study cohort. Moreover, we provide an easily-adapted R software application to generate a template of statistical plan for predictive biomarker validation so investigators can easily incorporate into their study proposals.

Conclusion: Our study provides guidance and software to help biostatisticians and clinicians design sound clinical studies for testing predictive biomarkers.

Citing Articles

It's not 'just a tube of blood': principles of protocol development, sample collection, staffing and budget considerations for blood-based biomarkers in immunotherapy studies.

Jiang C, Niu Z, Green M, Zhao L, Raupp S, Pannecouk B J Immunother Cancer. 2021; 9(7).

PMID: 34321277 PMC: 8320252. DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003212.


Early2 factor (E2F) deregulation is a prognostic and predictive biomarker in lung adenocarcinoma.

Chen L, Kurtyka C, Welsh E, Rivera J, Engel B, Munoz-Antonia T Oncotarget. 2016; 7(50):82254-82265.

PMID: 27756884 PMC: 5347689. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.12672.

References
1.
Zhu C, Ding K, Strumpf D, Weir B, Meyerson M, Pennell N . Prognostic and predictive gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(29):4417-24. PMC: 2988634. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.4325. View

2.
Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M . Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Stat Med. 2000; 19(4):441-52. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000229)19:4<441::aid-sim349>3.0.co;2-n. View

3.
Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Sugawara S, Oizumi S, Isobe H . Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(25):2380-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909530. View

4.
Rosell R, Viteri S, Molina M, Benlloch S, Taron M . Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2009; 22(2):112-20. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e32833500d2. View

5.
Felip E, Rosell R, Maestre J, Rodriguez-Paniagua J, Moran T, Astudillo J . Preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(19):3138-45. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.6204. View