Criteria to interpret cancer biomarker increments crossing the recommended cut-off compared in a simulation model focusing on false positive signals and tumour detection time

Modeling strategies to analyse longitudinal biomarker data: An illustration on predicting immunotherapy non-response in non-small cell lung cancer

Serum tumor markers acquired through a blood draw are known to reflect tumor activity. Their non-invasive nature allows for more frequent testing compared to traditional imaging methods used for response evaluations. Our study aims to compare nine prediction methods to accurately, and with a low false positive rate, predict progressive disease despite treatment (i.e. non-response) using longitudinal tumor biomarker data. Bi-weekly measurements of CYFRA, CA-125, CEA, NSE, and SCC were available from a cohort of 412 advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated up to two years with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Serum tumor marker measurements from the first six weeks after treatment initiation were used to predict treatment response at 6 months. Nine models with varying complexity were evaluated in this study, showing how longitudinal biomarker data can be used to predict non-response to immunotherapy in NSCLC patients.

Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

For medical tests that have a central role in clinical decision-making, current guidelines advocate outcome-based analytical performance specifications. Given that empirical (clinical trial-style) analyses are often impractical or unfeasible in this context, the ability to set such specifications is expected to rely on indirect studies to calculate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream clinical, operational, and economic outcomes. Currently, however, a lack of awareness and guidance concerning available alternative indirect methods is limiting the production of outcome-based specifications. Therefore, our aim was to review available indirect methods and present an analytical framework to inform future outcome-based performance goals.

CONTENT

A methodology review consisting of database searches and extensive citation tracking was conducted to identify studies using indirect methods to incorporate or evaluate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream outcomes (including clinical accuracy, clinical utility, and/or costs). Eighty-two studies were identified, most of which evaluated the impact of imprecision and/or bias on clinical accuracy. A common analytical framework underpinning the various methods was identified, consisting of 3 key steps: (a) calculation of "true" test values; (b) calculation of measured test values (incorporating uncertainty); and (c) calculation of the impact of discrepancies between (a) and (b) on specified outcomes. A summary of the methods adopted is provided, and key considerations are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Various approaches are available for conducting indirect assessments to inform outcome-based performance specifications. This study provides an overview of methods and key considerations to inform future studies and research in this area.

Monitoring performance of progression assessment criteria for cancer antigen 125 among patients with ovarian cancer compared by computer simulation

BACKGROUND

Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is used to monitor tumor burden among patients with advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer. The purpose is to compare the monitoring performance of seven previously proposed criteria.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The CA125 assessment criteria were applied to simulated datasets. We investigated the ability to provide information on CA125 increments as well as their robustness against false positive signals.

RESULTS

For baseline concentrations above cut-off, the best performing criterion was based on a confirmed increment ≥2.5-times the nadir concentration. For baseline concentrations below cut-off, the best performing criterion was based on a confirmed increment from ≤ cut-off to >two-times cut-off.

DISCUSSION

Computer simulation models may be useful for a preclinical validation of criteria to be investigated in clinical trials.

Calculation of limits for significant unidirectional changes in two or more serial results of a biomarker based on a computer simulation model

Background

Reference change values (RCVs) were introduced more than 30 years ago and provide objective tools for assessment of the significance of differences in two consecutive results from an individual. However, in practice, more results are usually available for monitoring, and using the RCV concept on more than two results will increase the number of false-positive results. Therefore, a simple method is needed to interpret the significance of a difference when all available serial biomarker results are considered.

Methods

A computer simulation model using Excel was developed. Based on 10,000 simulated data from healthy individuals, a series of up to 20 results from an individual was generated using different values for the within-subject biological variation plus the analytical variation. Each new result in this series was compared to the initial measurement result. These successive serial relative differences were computed to give limits for significant unidirectional differences with a constant cumulated maximum probability of both 95% ( P < 0.05) and 99% ( P < 0.01).

Results

Factors used to multiply the first result from an individual were calculated to create the limits for constant cumulated significant differences. The factors were shown to become a simple function of the number of results and the total coefficient of variation.

Conclusions

To interpret unidirectional differences in two or more serial results of a biomarker, the limits for significances are easily calculated using the presented factors. The first result is multiplied by the appropriate factor for increase or decrease, which gives the limits for a significant difference.