Author
Listed:
- Neil Hawkins
(University of Glasgow)
- Janet Bouttell
(Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, QMC)
- Dmitry Ponomarev
(Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District)
Abstract
Background Predictive biomarkers are intended to predict an individual’s expected response to specific treatments. These are an important component of precision medicine. We explore measures of biomarker performance that are based on the expected probability of response to individual treatment conditional on biomarker status. We show how these measures can be used to establish thresholds at which testing strategies will be clinically superior. Methods We used a decision model to compare expected probabilities of response of treat-all and test-and-treat strategies. Based on this, R-Shiny-based apps were developed which produce plots of the threshold positive and negative predictive values or sensitivities and specificities above which a ‘test-and-treat’ strategy will outperform a ‘treat-all’ strategy. We present a case study using data on the use of RAS status to predict response to panitumumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Results Where a companion diagnostic is predictive of response to one of the treatments being compared, it is possible to estimate threshold sensitivities and specificities above which a testing strategy will outperform a treat-all strategy, based only on the odds ratio of response. Where negative and positive predictive values were used, the threshold depended on the prevalence of the biomarker-positive patients. Discussion These intuitive performance measures for predictive biomarkers, based on expected response to individual treatments, can be used to identify promising candidate companion diagnostic tests and indicate the potential magnitude of the net benefit of testing.
Suggested Citation
Neil Hawkins & Janet Bouttell & Dmitry Ponomarev, 2025.
"Measures of Performance and Clinical Superiority Thresholds for ‘Test-and-treat’ Predictive Biomarkers,"
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 65-74, January.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00906-z
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00906-z
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00906-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.