Assessing the clinical utility of biomarkers using the intervention probability curve (IPC).

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Rafael Paez, Dianna J Rowe, Stephen A Deppen, Eric L Grogan, Alexander Kaizer, Darryl J Bornhop, Amanda K Kussrow, Anna E Barón, Fabien Maldonado, Michael N Kammer
{"title":"Assessing the clinical utility of biomarkers using the intervention probability curve (IPC).","authors":"Rafael Paez, Dianna J Rowe, Stephen A Deppen, Eric L Grogan, Alexander Kaizer, Darryl J Bornhop, Amanda K Kussrow, Anna E Barón, Fabien Maldonado, Michael N Kammer","doi":"10.3233/CBM-230054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing the clinical utility of biomarkers is a critical step before clinical implementation. The reclassification of patients across clinically relevant subgroups is considered one of the best methods to estimate clinical utility. However, there are important limitations with this methodology. We recently proposed the intervention probability curve (IPC) which models the likelihood that a provider will choose an intervention as a continuous function of the probability, or risk, of disease.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the potential impact of a new biomarker for lung cancer using the IPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The IPC derived from the National Lung Screening Trial was used to assess the potential clinical utility of a biomarker for suspected lung cancer. The summary statistics of the change in likelihood of intervention over the population can be interpreted as the expected clinical impact of the added biomarker.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The IPC analysis of the novel biomarker estimated that 8% of the benign nodules could avoid an invasive procedure while the cancer nodules would largely remain unchanged (0.1%). We showed the benefits of this approach compared to traditional reclassification methods based on thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The IPC methodology can be a valuable tool for assessing biomarkers prior to clinical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56320,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Biomarkers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11055936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Biomarkers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/CBM-230054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assessing the clinical utility of biomarkers is a critical step before clinical implementation. The reclassification of patients across clinically relevant subgroups is considered one of the best methods to estimate clinical utility. However, there are important limitations with this methodology. We recently proposed the intervention probability curve (IPC) which models the likelihood that a provider will choose an intervention as a continuous function of the probability, or risk, of disease.

Objective: To assess the potential impact of a new biomarker for lung cancer using the IPC.

Methods: The IPC derived from the National Lung Screening Trial was used to assess the potential clinical utility of a biomarker for suspected lung cancer. The summary statistics of the change in likelihood of intervention over the population can be interpreted as the expected clinical impact of the added biomarker.

Results: The IPC analysis of the novel biomarker estimated that 8% of the benign nodules could avoid an invasive procedure while the cancer nodules would largely remain unchanged (0.1%). We showed the benefits of this approach compared to traditional reclassification methods based on thresholds.

Conclusions: The IPC methodology can be a valuable tool for assessing biomarkers prior to clinical implementation.

利用干预概率曲线 (IPC) 评估生物标记物的临床效用。
背景:评估生物标记物的临床效用是临床应用前的关键一步。在临床相关亚组中对患者进行重新分类被认为是评估临床效用的最佳方法之一。然而,这种方法也存在重要的局限性。我们最近提出了干预概率曲线(IPC),它将医疗服务提供者选择干预措施的可能性作为疾病概率或风险的连续函数进行建模:利用 IPC 评估肺癌新生物标志物的潜在影响:方法:使用从国家肺部筛查试验中得出的 IPC 来评估疑似肺癌生物标志物的潜在临床效用。干预人群可能性变化的汇总统计可解释为新增生物标志物的预期临床影响:对新型生物标志物的 IPC 分析估计,8% 的良性结节可避免进行侵入性手术,而癌症结节则基本保持不变(0.1%)。与传统的基于阈值的再分类方法相比,我们展示了这种方法的优势:IPC方法是在临床应用前评估生物标记物的重要工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Biomarkers
Cancer Biomarkers ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
195
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Concentrating on molecular biomarkers in cancer research, Cancer Biomarkers publishes original research findings (and reviews solicited by the editor) on the subject of the identification of markers associated with the disease processes whether or not they are an integral part of the pathological lesion. The disease markers may include, but are not limited to, genomic, epigenomic, proteomics, cellular and morphologic, and genetic factors predisposing to the disease or indicating the occurrence of the disease. Manuscripts on these factors or biomarkers, either in altered forms, abnormal concentrations or with abnormal tissue distribution leading to disease causation will be accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信