A Decision-Theoretic Comparison of Treatments to Resolve Air Leaks After Lung Surgery Based on Nonparametric Modeling

Making Patient-Specific Treatment Decisions Using Prognostic Variables and Utilities of Clinical Outcomes

We argue that well-informed patient-specific decision-making may be carried out as three consecutive tasks: (1) estimating key parameters of a statistical model, (2) using prognostic information to convert these parameters into clinically interpretable values, and (3) specifying joint utility functions to quantify risk-benefit trade-offs between clinical outcomes. Using the management of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma as our motivating example, we explain the role of prognostic covariates that characterize between-patient heterogeneity in clinical outcomes. We show that explicitly specifying the joint utility of clinical outcomes provides a coherent basis for patient-specific decision-making.

Dirichlet process mixtures under affine transformations of the data

Location-scale Dirichlet process mixtures of Gaussians (DPM-G) have proved extremely useful in dealing with density estimation and clustering problems in a wide range of domains. Motivated by an astronomical application, in this work we address the robustness of DPM-G models to affine transformations of the data, a natural requirement for any sensible statistical method for density estimation and clustering. First, we devise a coherent prior specification of the model which makes posterior inference invariant with respect to affine transformations of the data. Second, we formalise the notion of asymptotic robustness under data transformation and show that mild assumptions on the true data generating process are sufficient to ensure that DPM-G models feature such a property. Our investigation is supported by an extensive simulation study and illustrated by the analysis of an astronomical dataset consisting of physical measurements of stars in the field of the globular cluster NGC 2419.

Bayesian Utility-Based Designs for Subgroup-Specific Treatment Comparison and Early-Phase Dose Optimization in Oncology Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Despite the fact that almost any sample of patients with a particular disease is heterogeneous, most clinical trial designs ignore the possibility that treatment or dose effects may differ between prognostic or biologically defined subgroups. This article reviews two clinical trial designs that make subgroup-specific decisions and compares each to a simpler design that ignores patient heterogeneity. The purpose is to illustrate the benefits of accounting prospectively for treatment-subgroup interactions and how utilities may be used to quantify risk-benefit trade-offs.

METHODS

Two Bayesian clinical trial designs that perform subgroup-specific decision making and inference based on elicited utilities of patient outcomes are reviewed. The first is a randomized comparative trial of nutritional prehabilitation for patients undergoing esophageal resection that has two prognostic subgroups and is based on postoperative morbidity score. The second is a sequentially adaptive trial of natural killer cells for treating hematologic malignancies that is based on five time-to-event outcomes and that performs safety monitoring and optimizes cell dose within six disease subgroups. Computer simulations under a range of different scenarios are presented for each design to establish its operating characteristics and compare it to a more conventional design that ignores patient heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Each design has attractive operating characteristics, is greatly superior to a simplified design that ignores patient subgroups, is robust to deviations from its assumed statistical model, and is feasible to use for conducting trials.

CONCLUSION

Bayesian designs that make subgroup-specific decisions in randomized comparative trials or sequentially adaptive early-phase dose-finding trials are superior to designs that ignore patient heterogeneity. Using elicited utilities of complex patient outcomes to quantify risk-benefit trade-offs provides a practical and ethical basis for decision making and treatment evaluation in clinical trials.

Clinical Trial Design as a Decision Problem

The intent of this discussion is to highlight opportunities and limitations of utility-based and decision theoretic arguments in clinical trial design. The discussion is based on a specific case study, but the arguments and principles remain valid in general. The example concerns the design of a randomized clinical trial to compare a gel sealant versus standard care for resolving air leaks after pulmonary resection. The design follows a principled approach to optimal decision making, including a probability model for the unknown distributions of time to resolution of air leaks under the two treatment arms, and an explicit utility function that quantifies clinical preferences for alternative outcomes. As is typical for any real application, the final implementation includes some compromises from the initial principled setup. In particular, we use the formal decision problem only for the final decision, but use reasonable ad-hoc decision boundaries for making interim group sequential decisions that stop the trial early. Beyond the discussion of the particular study, we review more general considerations of using a decision theoretic approach for clinical trial design and summarize some of the reasons why such approaches are not commonly used.

A Decision-Theoretic Comparison of Treatments to Resolve Air Leaks After Lung Surgery Based on Nonparametric Modeling

We propose a Bayesian nonparametric utility-based group sequential design for a randomized clinical trial to compare a gel sealant to standard care for resolving air leaks after pulmonary resection. Clinically, resolving air leaks in the days soon after surgery is highly important, since longer resolution time produces undesirable complications that require extended hospitalization. The problem of comparing treatments is complicated by the fact that the resolution time distributions are skewed and multi-modal, so using means is misleading. We address these challenges by assuming Bayesian nonparametric probability models for the resolution time distributions and basing the comparative test on weighted means. The weights are elicited as clinical utilities of the resolution times. The proposed design uses posterior expected utilities as group sequential test criteria. The procedure's frequentist properties are studied by extensive simulations.