% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Habermehl:132643,
author = {C. Habermehl$^*$ and A. Benner$^*$ and A.
Kopp-Schneider$^*$},
title = {{A}ddressing small sample size bias in multiple-biomarker
trials: {I}nclusion of biomarker-negative patients and
{F}irth correction.},
journal = {Biometrical journal},
volume = {60},
number = {2},
issn = {0323-3847},
address = {Berlin},
publisher = {Wiley-VCH},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-00303},
pages = {275 - 287},
year = {2018},
abstract = {In recent years, numerous approaches for biomarker-based
clinical trials have been developed. One of these
developments are multiple-biomarker trials, which aim to
investigate multiple biomarkers simultaneously in
independent subtrials. For low-prevalence biomarkers, small
sample sizes within the subtrials have to be expected, as
well as many biomarker-negative patients at the screening
stage. The small sample sizes may make it unfeasible to
analyze the subtrials individually. This imposes the need to
develop new approaches for the analysis of such trials. With
an expected large group of biomarker-negative patients, it
seems reasonable to explore options to benefit from
including them in such trials. We consider advantages and
disadvantages of the inclusion of biomarker-negative
patients in a multiple-biomarker trial with a survival
endpoint. We discuss design options that include
biomarker-negative patients in the study and address the
issue of small sample size bias in such trials. We carry out
a simulation study for a design where biomarker-negative
patients are kept in the study and are treated with standard
of care. We compare three different analysis approaches
based on the Cox model to examine if the inclusion of
biomarker-negative patients can provide a benefit with
respect to bias and variance of the treatment effect
estimates. We apply the Firth correction to reduce the small
sample size bias. The results of the simulation study
suggest that for small sample situations, the Firth
correction should be applied to adjust for the small sample
size bias. Additional to the Firth penalty, the inclusion of
biomarker-negative patients in the analysis can lead to
further but small improvements in bias and standard
deviation of the estimates.},
cin = {C060},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:28762532},
doi = {10.1002/bimj.201600226},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/132643},
}