Variable selection for individualised treatment rules with discrete outcomes

An individualised treatment rule (ITR) is a decision rule that aims to improve individuals' health outcomes by recommending treatments according to subject-specific information. In observational studies, collected data may contain many variables that are irrelevant to treatment decisions. Including all variables in an ITR could yield low efficiency and a complicated treatment rule that is difficult to implement. Thus, selecting variables to improve the treatment rule is crucial. We propose a doubly robust variable selection method for ITRs, and show that it compares favourably with competing approaches. We illustrate the proposed method on data from an adaptive, web-based stress management tool.

Optimal individualized decision rules from a multi-arm trial: A comparison of methods and an application to tailoring inter-donation intervals among blood donors in the UK

There is a growing interest in precision medicine where individual heterogeneity is incorporated into decision-making and treatments are tailored to individuals to provide better healthcare. One important aspect of precision medicine is the estimation of the optimal individualized treatment rule (ITR) that optimizes the expected outcome. Most methods developed for this purpose are restricted to the setting with two treatments, while clinical studies with more than two treatments are common in practice. In this work, we summarize methods to estimate the optimal ITR in the multi-arm setting and compare their performance in large-scale clinical trials via simulation studies. We then illustrate their utilities with a case study using the data from the INTERVAL trial, which randomly assigned over 20,000 male blood donors from England to one of the three inter-donation intervals (12-week, 10-week, and eight-week) over two years. We estimate the optimal individualized donation strategies under three different objectives. Our findings are fairly consistent across five different approaches that are applied: when we target the maximization of the total units of blood collected, almost all donors are assigned to the eight-week inter-donation interval, whereas if we aim at minimizing the low hemoglobin deferral rates, almost all donors are assigned to donate every 12 weeks. However, when the goal is to maximize the utility score that "discounts" the total units of blood collected by the incidences of low hemoglobin deferrals, we observe some heterogeneity in the optimal inter-donation interval across donors and the optimal donor assignment strategy is highly dependent on the trade-off parameter in the utility function.

Efficient screening of predictive biomarkers for individual treatment selection

The development of molecular diagnostic tools to achieve individualized medicine requires identifying predictive biomarkers associated with subgroups of individuals who might receive beneficial or harmful effects from different available treatments. However, due to the large number of candidate biomarkers in the large-scale genetic and molecular studies, and complex relationships among clinical outcome, biomarkers, and treatments, the ordinary statistical tests for the interactions between treatments and covariates have difficulties from their limited statistical powers. In this paper, we propose an efficient method for detecting predictive biomarkers. We employ weighted loss functions of Chen et al. to directly estimate individual treatment scores and propose synthetic posterior inference for effect sizes of biomarkers. We develop an empirical Bayes approach, namely, we estimate unknown hyperparameters in the prior distribution based on data. We then provide efficient screening methods for the candidate biomarkers via optimal discovery procedure with adequate control of false discovery rate. The proposed method is demonstrated in simulation studies and an application to a breast cancer clinical study in which the proposed method was shown to detect the much larger numbers of significant biomarkers than existing standard methods.

Bayesian cancer clinical trial designs with subgroup-specific decisions

Two illustrative applications are presented of Bayesian clinical trial designs that make adaptive subgroup-specific decisions based on elicited utilities of patient outcomes to quantify risk-benefit trade-offs. The first design is for a randomized trial to evaluate effects of nutritional prehabilitation on post-operative morbidity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing surgery. The second design is for a dose-finding trial of natural killer cells to treat advanced hematologic malignancies, with five time-to-event outcomes. Each design is based on a Bayesian hierarchical model that borrows strength between subgroups. Computer simulation is used to evaluate each design's properties, including comparison to a simpler design ignoring treatment-subgroup interactions. The simulations show that accounting prospectively for treatment-subgroup interactions yields designs with very desirable properties, is greatly superior to a simplified comparator design that ignores subgroups if treatment-subgroup interactions actually exist, and each design is robust to deviations from the assumed underlying model.