Detecting an interaction between treatment and a continuous covariate: A comparison of two approaches

被引:24
作者
Sauerbrei, Willi
Royston, Patrick
Zapien, Karina
机构
[1] Univ Freiburg, Med Ctr, Inst Med Biometry & Med Informat, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany
[2] MRC, Canc Grp, Clin Trials Unit, London NW1 2DA, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
clinical trials; interaction; continuous covariates; fractional polynomials; stability; bootstrap; type; 1; error;
D O I
10.1016/j.csda.2006.12.041
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
In clinical trials, there is considerable interest in investigating whether a treatment effect is similar in all patients, or that some prognostic variable indicates a differential response to treatment. To examine this, a continuous predictor is usually categorized into groups according to one or more cutpoints. The treatment/covariate interaction is then analyzed in factorial fashion using multiplicative terms. The use of cutpoints raises several difficult issues for the analyst. It is preferable to keep continuous variables continuous in such a model. To achieve this, the MFP algorithm for multivariable model-building with fractional polynomials was recently extended to a new algorithm called multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI). With the latter, covariates may be binary, categorical or continuous, and cutpoints are avoided. MFPI is compared with a graphical technique, the subpopulation treatment-effect pattern plot or subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP). Differences between MFPI and STEPP are illustrated by re-analysis of a randomized trial in kidney cancer. The stability of the two procedures is investigated by using the bootstrap. The Type I error probability of MFPI to 'detect' spurious interactions is estimated by simulation. MFPI and STEPP are found to exhibit similar treatment/covariate interactions. The tail-oriented variant of STEPP is found to give more stable and interpretable results than the sliding window variant. The type 1 error probabilty of MFPI is found to be close to its nominal value. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:4054 / 4063
页数:10
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   DANGERS OF USING OPTIMAL CUTPOINTS IN THE EVALUATION OF PROGNOSTIC FACTORS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
LAUSEN, B ;
SAUERBREI, W ;
SCHUMACHER, M .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1994, 86 (11) :829-835
[2]   Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials [J].
Assmann, SF ;
Pocock, SJ ;
Enos, LE ;
Kasten, LE .
LANCET, 2000, 355 (9209) :1064-1069
[3]   Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials [J].
Bonetti, M ;
Gelber, RD .
BIOSTATISTICS, 2004, 5 (03) :465-481
[4]  
Bonetti M, 2000, STAT MED, V19, P2595, DOI 10.1002/1097-0258(20001015)19:19<2595::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-M
[6]  
Breiman L, 1996, ANN STAT, V24, P2350
[7]   Adjuvant endocrine therapy compared with no systemic therapy for elderly women with early breast cancer: 21-year results of international breast cancer study group trial IV [J].
Crivellari, D ;
Price, K ;
Gelber, RD ;
Castiglione-Gertsch, M ;
Rudenstam, CM ;
Lindtner, J ;
Fey, MF ;
Senn, HJ ;
Coates, AS ;
Collins, J ;
Goldhirsch, A .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2003, 21 (24) :4517-4523
[8]   Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-recept-postive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials [J].
Fisher, B ;
Jeong, JH ;
Bryant, J ;
Anderson, S ;
Dignam, J ;
Fisher, ER ;
Wolmark, N .
LANCET, 2004, 364 (9437) :858-868
[9]   Responder identification in clinical trials with censored data [J].
Kehl, V ;
Ulm, K .
COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2006, 50 (05) :1338-1355
[10]  
Ritchie A, 1999, LANCET, V353, P14