IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v71y2022i5p1605-1622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility‐based Bayesian personalized treatment selection for advanced breast cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Juhee Lee
  • Peter F. Thall
  • Bora Lim
  • Pavlos Msaouel

Abstract

A Bayesian method is proposed for personalized treatment selection in settings where data are available from a randomized clinical trial with two or more outcomes. The motivating application is a randomized trial that compared letrozole plus bevacizumab to letrozole alone as first‐line therapy for hormone receptor‐positive advanced breast cancer. The combination treatment arm had larger median progression‐free survival time, but also a higher rate of severe toxicities. This suggests that the risk‐benefit trade‐off between these two outcomes should play a central role in selecting each patient's treatment, particularly since older patients are less likely to tolerate severe toxicities. To quantify the desirability of each possible outcome combination for an individual patient, we elicited from breast cancer oncologists a utility function that varied with age. The utility was used as an explicit criterion for quantifying risk‐benefit trade‐offs when making personalized treatment selections. A Bayesian nonparametric multivariate regression model with a dependent Dirichlet process prior was fit to the trial data. Under the fitted model, a new patient's treatment can be selected based on the posterior predictive utility distribution. For the breast cancer trial dataset, the optimal treatment depends on the patient's age, with the combination preferable for patients 70 years or younger and the single agent preferable for patients older than 70.

Suggested Citation

  • Juhee Lee & Peter F. Thall & Bora Lim & Pavlos Msaouel, 2022. "Utility‐based Bayesian personalized treatment selection for advanced breast cancer," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1605-1622, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:71:y:2022:i:5:p:1605-1622
    DOI: 10.1111/rssc.12582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12582
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssc.12582?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Iorio, Maria & Muller, Peter & Rosner, Gary L. & MacEachern, Steven N., 2004. "An ANOVA Model for Dependent Random Measures," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 205-215, January.
    2. Allan S. Detsky & Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn & Donald A. Redelmeier & David Naimark, 1997. "Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 2—Building a Tree," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 126-135, April.
    3. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    4. Sankar Kumar Roy & Gurupada Maity & Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, 2017. "Multi-objective two-stage grey transportation problem using utility function with goals," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(2), pages 417-439, June.
    5. Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn & David Naimark & Donald A. Redelmeier & Allan S. Detsky, 1997. "Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 3—Estimating Probabilities and Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 136-141, April.
    6. David Naimark & Murray D. Krahn & Gary Naglie & Donald A. Redelmeier & Allan S. Detsky, 1997. "Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 5—Working with Markov Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 152-159, April.
    7. Allan S. Detsky & Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn & David Naimark & Donald A. Redelmeier, 1997. "Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 1—Getting Started," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 123-125, April.
    8. Murray D. Krahn & Gary Naglie & David Naimark & Donald A. Redelmeier & Allan S. Detsky, 1997. "Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 4-Analyzing the Model and Interpreting the Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 142-151, April.
    9. Maria De Iorio & Wesley O. Johnson & Peter Müller & Gary L. Rosner, 2009. "Bayesian Nonparametric Nonproportional Hazards Survival Modeling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 762-771, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Douglas K. Owens, 2002. "Analytic Tools for Public Health Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 3-10, September.
    2. Andrés F. Barrientos & Alejandro Jara & Fernando A. Quintana, 2017. "Fully Nonparametric Regression for Bounded Data Using Dependent Bernstein Polynomials," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(518), pages 806-825, April.
    3. Richardson, Robert & Hartman, Brian, 2018. "Bayesian nonparametric regression models for modeling and predicting healthcare claims," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Antonio Lijoi & Bernardo Nipoti, 2013. "A class of hazard rate mixtures for combining survival data from different experiments," DEM Working Papers Series 059, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Yushu Shi & Purushottam Laud & Joan Neuner, 2021. "A dependent Dirichlet process model for survival data with competing risks," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 156-176, January.
    6. Chen, Kunzhi & Shen, Weining & Zhu, Weixuan, 2023. "Covariate dependent Beta-GOS process," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Antonio Lijoi & Bernardo Nipoti, 2014. "A Class of Hazard Rate Mixtures for Combining Survival Data From Different Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(506), pages 802-814, June.
    8. Kassandra Fronczyk & Athanasios Kottas, 2017. "Risk Assessment for Toxicity Experiments with Discrete and Continuous Outcomes: A Bayesian Nonparametric Approach," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 22(4), pages 585-601, December.
    9. Kurtis Shuler & Samuel Verbanic & Irene A. Chen & Juhee Lee, 2021. "A Bayesian nonparametric analysis for zero‐inflated multivariate count data with application to microbiome study," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(4), pages 961-979, August.
    10. Vaghefi, A. & Farzan, Farbod & Jafari, Mohsen A., 2015. "Modeling industrial loads in non-residential buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 378-389.
    11. Das, Priyam & Ghosal, Subhashis, 2018. "Bayesian non-parametric simultaneous quantile regression for complete and grid data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 172-186.
    12. J. E. Griffin & M. Kolossiatis & M. F. J. Steel, 2013. "Comparing distributions by using dependent normalized random-measure mixtures," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 75(3), pages 499-529, June.
    13. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    14. Rowan Iskandar, 2018. "A theoretical foundation for state-transition cohort models in health decision analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Stefano Favaro & Antonio Lijoi & Igor Prünster, 2012. "On the stick–breaking representation of normalized inverse Gaussian priors," DEM Working Papers Series 008, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Peel, D.A., 2013. "Heterogeneous agents and the implications of the Markowitz model of utility for multi-prize lottery tickets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 264-267.
    17. Luis Rios & Nikolaos Sahinidis, 2010. "Portfolio optimization for wealth-dependent risk preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 63-90, June.
    18. Charalampia N. Anastasiou & Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Nikos Kalogeras & Maria I. Tsagkaraki & Ioanna Kalatzi & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2017. "Can the “Euro-Leaf” Logo Affect Consumers’ Willingness-To-Buy and Willingness-To-Pay for Organic Food and Attract Consumers’ Preferences? An Empirical Study in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Vishal Kashav & Chandra Prakash Garg & Rupesh Kumar, 2023. "Ranking the strategies to overcome the barriers of the maritime supply chain (MSC) of containerized freight under fuzzy environment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 324(1), pages 1223-1268, May.
    20. Pati, Debdeep & Dunson, David B. & Tokdar, Surya T., 2013. "Posterior consistency in conditional distribution estimation," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 456-472.

    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:71:y:2022:i:5:p:1605-1622. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.