Search

Before biomarkers can be used in clinical trials or patients' management, the laboratory assays that measure their levels have to go through development and analytical validation. One of the most critical performance metrics for validation of any assay is related to the minimum amount of values that can be detected and any value below this limit is referred to as below the limit of detection (LOD). Most of the existing approaches that model such biomarkers, restricted by LOD, are parametric in nature. These parametric models, however, heavily depend on the distributional assumptions, and can result in loss of precision under the model or the distributional misspecifications. Using an example from a prostate cancer clinical trial, we show how a critical relationship between serum androgen biomarker and a prognostic factor of overall survival is completely missed by the widely used parametric Tobit model. Motivated by this example, we implement a semiparametric approach, through a pseudo‐value technique, that effectively captures the important relationship between the LOD restricted serum androgen and the prognostic factor. Our simulations show that the pseudo‐value based semiparametric model outperforms a commonly used parametric model for modeling below LOD biomarkers by having lower mean square errors of estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major emphasis in precision medicine is to optimally treat subgroups of patients who may benefit from certain therapeutic agents. And as such, enormous resources and innovative clinical trials designs in oncology are devoted to identifying predictive biomarkers. Predictive biomarkers are ones that will identify patients that are more likely to respond to specific therapies and they are usually discovered through retrospective analysis from large randomized phase II or phase III trials. One important design to consider is the stratified biomarker design, where patients will have their specimens obtained at baseline and the biomarker status will be assessed prior to random assignment. Regardless of their biomarker status, patients will be randomized to either an experimental arm or the standard of care arm. The stratified biomarker design can be used to test for a treatment-biomarker interaction in predicting a time-to event outcome. Many biomarkers, however, are derived from tissues from patients, and their levels may be heterogeneous. As a result, biomarker levels may be measured with error and this would have an adverse impact on the power of a stratified biomarker clinical trial. We present a trial design and an analysis framework for the stratified biomarker design. We show that the naïve test is biased and provide bias-corrected estimators for computing the sample size and the 95% confidence interval when testing for a treatment-biomarker interaction in predicting a time to event outcome. We propose a sample size formula that adjusts for misclassification and apply it in the design of a phase III clinical trial in renal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials utilizing predictive biomarkers have become a research focus in personalized medicine. We investigate the effects of biomarker misclassification on the design and analysis of stratified biomarker clinical trials. For a variety of inference problems including marker-treatment interaction in particular, we show that marker misclassification may have profound adverse effects on the coverage of confidence intervals, power of the tests, and required sample sizes. For each inferential problem, we propose methods to adjust for the classification errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]