Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example
Do you wish to request the book?
Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example
2021
Overview
ABSTRACT
Background
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncommon in precision oncology. We provide an introduction and illustrative example of matching methods for evaluating precision oncology in the absence of RCTs. We focus on British Columbia's Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program, which applies whole‐genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to inform advanced cancer care.
Methods
Our cohort comprises 230 POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and matched POG‐naive controls. We generated our matched cohort using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and genetic matching prior to exploring survival differences.
Results
We find that genetic matching outperformed PSM when balancing covariates. In all cohorts, overall survival did not significantly differ across POG and POG‐naive patients (p > 0.05). Stratification by WGTA‐informed treatment indicated unmatched survival differences. Patients whose WGTA information led to treatment change were at a reduced hazard of death compared to POG‐naive controls in all cohorts, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.81) to 0.41 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.98).
Conclusion
These results signal that clinical effectiveness of precision oncology approaches will depend on rates of genomics‐informed treatment change. Our study will guide future evaluations of precision oncology and support reliable effect estimation when RCT data are unavailable.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
