Bayesian generalized linear models for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

With the recognition of the importance of evidence-based medicine, there is an emerging need for methods to systematically synthesize available data. Specifically, methods to provide accurate estimates of test characteristics for diagnostic tests are needed to help physicians make better clinical decisions. To provide more flexible approaches for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, we developed three Bayesian generalized linear models. Two of these models, a bivariate normal and a binomial model, analyzed pairs of sensitivity and specificity values while incorporating the correlation between these two outcome variables. Noninformative independent uniform priors were used for the variance of sensitivity, specificity and correlation. We also applied an inverse Wishart prior to check the sensitivity of the results. The third model was a multinomial model where the test results were modeled as multinomial random variables. All three models can include specific imaging techniques as covariates in order to compare performance. Vague normal priors were assigned to the coefficients of the covariates. The computations were carried out using the 'Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling' implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigated the properties of the three proposed models through extensive simulation studies. We also applied these models to a previously published meta-analysis dataset on cervical cancer as well as to an unpublished melanoma dataset. In general, our findings show that the point estimates of sensitivity and specificity were consistent among Bayesian and frequentist bivariate normal and binomial models. However, in the simulation studies, the estimates of the correlation coefficient from Bayesian bivariate models are not as good as those obtained from frequentist estimation regardless of which prior distribution was used for the covariance matrix. The Bayesian multinomial model consistently underestimated the sensitivity and specificity regardless of the sample size and correlation coefficient. In conclusion, the Bayesian bivariate binomial model provides the most flexible framework for future applications because of its following strengths: (1) it facilitates direct comparison between different tests; (2) it captures the variability in both sensitivity and specificity simultaneously as well as the intercorrelation between the two; and (3) it can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc correction. ^

A SIMULATION STUDY OF THE SIZE AND POWER OF SOME TWO-SAMPLE TESTS FOR UNEQUALLY CENSORED SURVIVAL DATA (RANK TESTS, LOGRANK, PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS, WILCOXON TESTS, EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION)

Sizes and power of selected two-sample tests of the equality of survival distributions are compared by simulation for small samples from unequally, randomly-censored exponential distributions. The tests investigated include parametric tests (F, Score, Likelihood, Asymptotic), logrank tests (Mantel, Peto-Peto), and Wilcoxon-Type tests (Gehan, Prentice). Equal sized samples, n = 18, 16, 32 with 1000 (size) and 500 (power) simulation trials, are compared for 16 combinations of the censoring proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%. For n = 8 and 16, the Asymptotic, Peto-Peto, and Wilcoxon tests perform at nominal 5% size expectations, but the F, Score and Mantel tests exceeded 5% size confidence limits for 1/3 of the censoring combinations. For n = 32, all tests showed proper size, with the Peto-Peto test most conservative in the presence of unequal censoring. Powers of all tests are compared for exponential hazard ratios of 1.4 and 2.0. There is little difference in power characteristics of the tests within the classes of tests considered. The Mantel test showed 90% to 95% power efficiency relative to parametric tests. Wilcoxon-type tests have the lowest relative power but are robust to differential censoring patterns. A modified Peto-Peto test shows power comparable to the Mantel test. For n = 32, a specific Weibull-exponential comparison of crossing survival curves suggests that the relative powers of logrank and Wilcoxon-type tests are dependent on the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution. Wilcoxon-type tests appear more powerful than logrank tests in the case of late-crossing and less powerful for early-crossing survival curves. Guidelines for the appropriate selection of two-sample tests are given. ^

A qualitative and quantitative assessment of cancer patients' perceptions of barriers to treatment

This study examined barriers that cancer patients experience in obtaining treatment. The principal aim of the study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment of barriers to cancer treatment for Texas cancer patients. The three specific aims of the study were to: (1) conduct a review and critique of published and unpublished research on barriers to cancer treatment; (2) conduct focus groups for the qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perceived barriers to cancer treatment; and (3) survey a representative sample of cancer patients regarding perceived barriers to treatment. The study was guided by the Aday and Andersen access framework of predisposing, enabling, and need determinants of care-seeking.^ To address the first specific aim, a total of 732 abstracts were examined, from which 154 articles were selected for review. Of these 154 articles, 57 that related directly to research on barriers to cancer treatment were chosen for subsequent analysis. Criteria were applied to each article to evaluate the strength of the study design, sampling and measurement procedures. The major barriers that were consistently documented to influence whether or not cancer patients sought or continued required treatment included problems with communication between the patient and provider, lack of information on side effects, the cost of treatment and associated difficulties in obtaining and maintaining insurance coverage, and the absence of formal and informal networks of social support. Access barriers were generally greater for older, minority women, and patients of lower socioeconomic status.^ To address the second specific aim, a total of eight focus groups (n = 44) were conducted across the State of Texas with cancer patients identified by the Texas Community Oncology Network, American Cancer Society, and community health centers. One important finding was that cost is the greatest hurdle that patients face. Another finding was that with the health care/insurance crisis, an increasing number of physicians are working with their patients to develop individually-tailored payment plans. For people in rural areas, travel to treatment sites is a major barrier due to the travel costs as well as work time forfeited by patients and their family members. A third major finding was the patients' family and church play important roles in providing social and emotional support for cancer patients.^ To address the third aim, a total of 910 cancer patients were surveyed during October and November, 1993. Approximately 65% of the cancer patients responded to the survey. The findings showed that the major barriers to treatment included costs of medications and diagnostic tests, transportation, lack of social support, problems understanding the written information regarding their disease as well as losing coverage or having higher premiums or copayments once they were diagnosed (particularly among blacks).^ Significant differences in reported barriers were found between racial groups. The minority respondents (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) tended to experience more barriers to treatment compared to the white respondents. More specifically, Hispanics were more likely to report transportation as a barrier to treatment than both white and blacks. Future research is needed to better understand the problems that minority cancer patients experience in receiving treatment. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^

Bayesian and survival model for tumor relapse status and disease-specific survival, with applications to breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in women in the United States. Studies on ipsilateral breast tumor relapse (IBTR) status and disease-specific survival will help guide clinic treatment and predict patient prognosis.^ After breast conservation therapy, patients with breast cancer may experience breast tumor relapse. This relapse is classified into two distinct types: true local recurrence (TR) and new ipsilateral primary tumor (NP). However, the methods used to classify the relapse types are imperfect and are prone to misclassification. In addition, some observed survival data (e.g., time to relapse and time from relapse to death)are strongly correlated with relapse types. The first part of this dissertation presents a Bayesian approach to (1) modeling the potentially misclassified relapse status and the correlated survival information, (2) estimating the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods, and (3) quantify the covariate effects on event probabilities. A shared frailty was used to account for the within-subject correlation between survival times. The inference was conducted using a Bayesian framework via Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation implemented in softwareWinBUGS. Simulation was used to validate the Bayesian method and assess its frequentist properties. The new model has two important innovations: (1) it utilizes the additional survival times correlated with the relapse status to improve the parameter estimation, and (2) it provides tools to address the correlation between the two diagnostic methods conditional to the true relapse types.^ Prediction of patients at highest risk for IBTR after local excision of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains a clinical concern. The goals of the second part of this dissertation were to evaluate a published nomogram from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, to determine the risk of IBTR in patients with DCIS treated with local excision, and to determine whether there is a subset of patients at low risk of IBTR. Patients who had undergone local excision from 1990 through 2007 at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a final diagnosis of DCIS (n=794) were included in this part. Clinicopathologic factors and the performance of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram for prediction of IBTR were assessed for 734 patients with complete data. Nomogram for prediction of 5- and 10-year IBTR probabilities were found to demonstrate imperfect calibration and discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .63 and a concordance index of .63. In conclusion, predictive models for IBTR in DCIS patients treated with local excision are imperfect. Our current ability to accurately predict recurrence based on clinical parameters is limited.^ The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of breast cancer is widely used to determine prognosis, yet survival within each AJCC stage shows wide variation and remains unpredictable. For the third part of this dissertation, biologic markers were hypothesized to be responsible for some of this variation, and the addition of biologic markers to current AJCC staging were examined for possibly provide improved prognostication. The initial cohort included patients treated with surgery as first intervention at MDACC from 1997 to 2006. Cox proportional hazards models were used to create prognostic scoring systems. AJCC pathologic staging parameters and biologic tumor markers were investigated to devise the scoring systems. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data was used as the external cohort to validate the scoring systems. Binary indicators for pathologic stage (PS), estrogen receptor status (E), and tumor grade (G) were summed to create PS+EG scoring systems devised to predict 5-year patient outcomes. These scoring systems facilitated separation of the study population into more refined subgroups than the current AJCC staging system. The ability of the PS+EG score to stratify outcomes was confirmed in both internal and external validation cohorts. The current study proposes and validates a new staging system by incorporating tumor grade and ER status into current AJCC staging. We recommend that biologic markers be incorporating into revised versions of the AJCC staging system for patients receiving surgery as the first intervention.^ Chapter 1 focuses on developing a Bayesian method to solve misclassified relapse status and application to breast cancer data. Chapter 2 focuses on evaluation of a breast cancer nomogram for predicting risk of IBTR in patients with DCIS after local excision gives the statement of the problem in the clinical research. Chapter 3 focuses on validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention. ^