4.5 Article

Meta-analysis of prognostic studies for a biomarker with a study-specific cutoff value

Journal

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 402-419

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1201

Keywords

biomarker; cutoff value; finite-mixture model; meta-analysis; prognostic study

Funding

  1. Kurume University Millennium Box Foundation for the Promotion of Science
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Technology of Japan [21500286]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H06299, 16K12403, 25330048, 21500286] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In prognostic studies, a summary statistic such as a hazard ratio is often reported between low-expression and high-expression groups of a biomarker with a study-specific cutoff value. Recently, several meta-analyses of prognostic studies have been reported, but these studies simply combined hazard ratios provided by the individual studies, overlooking the fact that the cutoff values are study-specific. We propose a method to summarize hazard ratios with study-specific cutoff values by estimating the hazard ratio for a 1-unit change of the biomarker in the underlying individual-level model. To this end, we introduce a model for a relationship between a reported log-hazard ratio for a 1-unit expected difference in the mean biomarker value between the low-expression and high-expression groups, which approximates the individual-level model, and propose to make an inference of the model by using the method for trend estimation based on grouped exposure data. Our combined estimator provides a valid interpretation if the biomarker distribution is correctly specified. We applied our proposed method to a dataset that examined the association between the biomarker Ki-67 and disease-free survival in breast cancer patients. We conducted simulation studies to examine the performance of our method. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available