ingest
cdrApp
2019-01-28T20:38:26.758Z
ea8bf0a0-2b23-445d-a69d-fefd5e5d3db8
modifyDatastreamByValue
RELS-EXT
fedoraAdmin
2019-01-28T20:39:24.321Z
Setting exclusive relation
addDatastream
MD_TECHNICAL
fedoraAdmin
2019-01-28T20:39:37.354Z
Adding technical metadata derived by FITS
addDatastream
MD_FULL_TEXT
fedoraAdmin
2019-01-28T20:40:04.223Z
Adding full text metadata extracted by Apache Tika
modifyDatastreamByValue
RELS-EXT
fedoraAdmin
2019-01-28T20:40:29.426Z
Setting exclusive relation
modifyDatastreamByValue
MD_DESCRIPTIVE
cdrApp
2019-02-01T16:24:53.584Z
modifyDatastreamByValue
MD_DESCRIPTIVE
cdrApp
2019-02-28T01:09:34.660Z
modifyDatastreamByValue
MD_DESCRIPTIVE
cdrApp
2019-03-19T20:26:33.726Z
Neha
Joshi
Author
Department of Biostatistics
Gillings School of Global Public Health
Multi-Stage Adaptive Enrichment Trials
We first consider the problem of estimating a biomarker-based subgroup and testing for treatment effect in the overall population and in the subgroup after the trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes the power for comparing the experimental treatment with the control. In the case of continuous outcome and a single biomarker, both a non-parametric method of estimating the subgroup and a method based on fitting a linear model with treatment by biomarker interaction to the data perform well. Several procedures for testing for treatment effect in all and in the subgroup are discussed. Cross-validation with two cohorts is used to estimate the biomarker cut-off to determine the best subgroup and to test for treatment effect. An approach that combines the tests in all patients and in the subgroup using Hochberg’s method is recommended. This test performs well in the case when there is a subgroup with sizable treatment effect and in the case when the treatment is beneficial to everyone.
We also consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect prospectively in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For subgroup estimation in trials with moderate effects sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods, such as linear regression, work better than more complex tree-based approaches. We propose a three-stage enrichment design, where the subgroup is estimated at the first interim analysis and then refined in the second interim analysis, along with a futility analysis. A weighted inverse normal combination test is used to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.
Additionally, we consider a problem of subgroup estimation based on a multivariate outcome in both parallel group and crossover trials. We compare three methods of defining and estimating the best subgroup: a method based on the average and the maximum of the outcomes and the method based on the p-value for the treatment comparison.
Winter 2019
2019
Biostatistics
eng
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School
Degree granting institution
Biostatistics
Anastasia
Ivanova
Thesis advisor
Chirayath
Suchindran
Thesis advisor
David
Couper
Thesis advisor
Jason
Fine
Thesis advisor
John
Baron
Thesis advisor
text
Neha
Joshi
Creator
Department of Biostatistics
Gillings School of Global Public Health
Multi-Stage Adaptive Enrichment Trials
We first consider the problem of estimating a biomarker-based subgroup and testing for treatment effect in the overall population and in the subgroup after the trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes the power for comparing the experimental treatment with the control. In the case of continuous outcome and a single biomarker, both a non-parametric method of estimating the subgroup and a method based on fitting a linear model with treatment by biomarker interaction to the data perform well. Several procedures for testing for treatment effect in all and in the subgroup are discussed. Cross-validation with two cohorts is used to estimate the biomarker cut-off to determine the best subgroup and to test for treatment effect. An approach that combines the tests in all patients and in the subgroup using Hochberg’s method is recommended. This test performs well in the case when there is a subgroup with sizable treatment effect and in the case when the treatment is beneficial to everyone.
We also consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect prospectively in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For subgroup estimation in trials with moderate effects sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods, such as linear regression, work better than more complex tree-based approaches. We propose a three-stage enrichment design, where the subgroup is estimated at the first interim analysis and then refined in the second interim analysis, along with a futility analysis. A weighted inverse normal combination test is used to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.
Additionally, we consider a problem of subgroup estimation based on a multivariate outcome in both parallel group and crossover trials. We compare three methods of defining and estimating the best subgroup: a method based on the average and the maximum of the outcomes and the method based on the p-value for the treatment comparison.
2019-12
2019
Biostatistics
eng
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School
Degree granting institution
Biostatistics
Anastasia
Ivanova
Thesis advisor
Chirayath
Suchindran
Thesis advisor
David
Couper
Thesis advisor
Jason
Fine
Thesis advisor
John
Baron
Thesis advisor
text
Neha
Joshi
Creator
Department of Biostatistics
Gillings School of Global Public Health
Multi-Stage Adaptive Enrichment Trials
We first consider the problem of estimating a biomarker-based subgroup and testing for treatment effect in the overall population and in the subgroup after the trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes the power for comparing the experimental treatment with the control. In the case of continuous outcome and a single biomarker, both a non-parametric method of estimating the subgroup and a method based on fitting a linear model with treatment by biomarker interaction to the data perform well. Several procedures for testing for treatment effect in all and in the subgroup are discussed. Cross-validation with two cohorts is used to estimate the biomarker cut-off to determine the best subgroup and to test for treatment effect. An approach that combines the tests in all patients and in the subgroup using Hochberg’s method is recommended. This test performs well in the case when there is a subgroup with sizable treatment effect and in the case when the treatment is beneficial to everyone.
We also consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect prospectively in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For subgroup estimation in trials with moderate effects sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods, such as linear regression, work better than more complex tree-based approaches. We propose a three-stage enrichment design, where the subgroup is estimated at the first interim analysis and then refined in the second interim analysis, along with a futility analysis. A weighted inverse normal combination test is used to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.
Additionally, we consider a problem of subgroup estimation based on a multivariate outcome in both parallel group and crossover trials. We compare three methods of defining and estimating the best subgroup: a method based on the average and the maximum of the outcomes and the method based on the p-value for the treatment comparison.
2019
2019-12
Biostatistics
eng
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School
Degree granting institution
Biostatistics
Anastasia
Ivanova
Thesis advisor
Chirayath
Suchindran
Thesis advisor
David
Couper
Thesis advisor
Jason
Fine
Thesis advisor
John
Baron
Thesis advisor
text
Neha
Joshi
Creator
Department of Biostatistics
Gillings School of Global Public Health
Multi-Stage Adaptive Enrichment Trials
We first consider the problem of estimating a biomarker-based subgroup and testing for treatment effect in the overall population and in the subgroup after the trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes the power for comparing the experimental treatment with the control. In the case of continuous outcome and a single biomarker, both a non-parametric method of estimating the subgroup and a method based on fitting a linear model with treatment by biomarker interaction to the data perform well. Several procedures for testing for treatment effect in all and in the subgroup are discussed. Cross-validation with two cohorts is used to estimate the biomarker cut-off to determine the best subgroup and to test for treatment effect. An approach that combines the tests in all patients and in the subgroup using Hochberg’s method is recommended. This test performs well in the case when there is a subgroup with sizable treatment effect and in the case when the treatment is beneficial to everyone.
We also consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect prospectively in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For subgroup estimation in trials with moderate effects sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods, such as linear regression, work better than more complex tree-based approaches. We propose a three-stage enrichment design, where the subgroup is estimated at the first interim analysis and then refined in the second interim analysis, along with a futility analysis. A weighted inverse normal combination test is used to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.
Additionally, we consider a problem of subgroup estimation based on a multivariate outcome in both parallel group and crossover trials. We compare three methods of defining and estimating the best subgroup: a method based on the average and the maximum of the outcomes and the method based on the p-value for the treatment comparison.
2019
2019-12
Biostatistics
eng
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School
Degree granting institution
Anastasia
Ivanova
Thesis advisor
Chirayath
Suchindran
Thesis advisor
David
Couper
Thesis advisor
Jason
Fine
Thesis advisor
John
Baron
Thesis advisor
text
Joshi_unc_0153D_18285.pdf
uuid:b9962c7f-7389-415b-9165-07a7d984a0e4
2021-01-28T00:00:00
2019-01-17T23:37:02Z
proquest
application/pdf
1148516