IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v54y2005i5p941-954.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistics for weighing benefits and harms in a proposed genetic substudy of a randomized cancer prevention trial

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart G. Baker
  • Barnett S. Kramer

Abstract

Summary. When evaluating potential interventions for cancer prevention, it is necessary to compare benefits and harms. With new study designs, new statistical approaches may be needed to facilitate this comparison. A case in point arose in a proposed genetic substudy of a randomized trial of tamoxifen versus placebo in asymptomatic women who were at high risk for breast cancer. Although the randomized trial showed that tamoxifen substantially reduced the risk of breast cancer, the harms from tamoxifen were serious and some were life threaten‐ing. In hopes of finding a subset of women with inherited risk genes who derive greater bene‐fits from tamoxifen, we proposed a nested case–control study to test some trial subjects for various genes and new statistical methods to extrapolate benefits and harms to the general population. An important design question is whether or not the study should target common low penetrance genes. Our calculations show that useful results are only likely with rare high penetrance genes.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart G. Baker & Barnett S. Kramer, 2005. "Statistics for weighing benefits and harms in a proposed genetic substudy of a randomized cancer prevention trial," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(5), pages 941-954, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:54:y:2005:i:5:p:941-954
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00522.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00522.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00522.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ying Huang & Eric Laber, 2016. "Personalized Evaluation of Biomarker Value: A Cost-Benefit Perspective," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(1), pages 43-65, June.
    2. Holly Janes & Margaret S. Pepe & Ying Huang, 2014. "A Framework for Evaluating Markers Used to Select Patient Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 159-167, February.
    3. Janes Holly & Brown Marshall D. & Huang Ying & Pepe Margaret S., 2014. "An Approach to Evaluating and Comparing Biomarkers for Patient Treatment Selection," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 99-121, May.
    4. Xiaofei Wang & Haibo Zhou, 2010. "Design and Inference for Cancer Biomarker Study with an Outcome and Auxiliary-Dependent Subsampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 502-511, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:54:y:2005:i:5:p:941-954. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.