bayesian mcpmod
play

Bayesian MCPMod F. Fleischer, C. Loley, S. Bossert, Q. Deng, J. Knig - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bayesian MCPMod F. Fleischer, C. Loley, S. Bossert, Q. Deng, J. Knig Workshop Bayesian methods in the development and assessment of new therapies, Gttingen, Dec 07th, 2018 Overview Introduction to MCPMod Bayesian version of the


  1. Bayesian MCPMod F. Fleischer, C. Loley, S. Bossert, Q. Deng, J. König Workshop „ Bayesian methods in the development and assessment of new therapies”, Göttingen, Dec 07th, 2018

  2. Overview • Introduction to MCPMod • Bayesian version of the MCP step • Comparison BMCPMod / MCPMod • Summary and discussion Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 2

  3. MCPMod - Introduction • MCPMod  Multiple Comparison Procedure and Modeling (under model uncertainty) Combines two principles of dose-finding studies: • – Multiple Comparison Procedure (MCP) – Modeling of dose reponse (DR) • Unified approach by Bretz et al. (2005) Set of candidate models for DR-modelling under model uncertainty – Test PoC using classical contrast tests adjusted for multiplicity of models – – Select a model or average across significant models to model DR shape Extended by Pinheiro et al. (2014) to generalized linear models – Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 3

  4. MCPMod - Overview Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 4

  5. MCPMod – Model definition • Response Y observed for given set of parallel groups of patients • K active doses: 𝑒 1 , … , 𝑒 𝐿 plus placebo: 𝑒 0 -> K+1 dose groups 𝑗𝑘 = 𝜈 𝑒 𝑗 + 𝜗 𝑗𝑘 , 𝜗 𝑗𝑘 ∼ 𝒪(0, 𝜏 2 ) , 𝑗 = 0, … , 𝐿, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑜 𝑗 𝑍 – 𝜈 𝑒 𝑗 : mean response at dose 𝑒 𝑗 – 𝑜 𝑗 : number of patients treated with doses d 𝑗 – 𝜗 𝑗𝑘 : error term of patient 𝑘 within dose group 𝑗 ; assumed to be independent • Mean response for each dose can be represented as 𝜈 𝑒 𝑗 = 𝑔(𝑒 𝑗 , 𝜾) for some dose-response model 𝑔 ⋅ • 𝜾 : parameter vector of the unknown dose-response model 𝑔 -> 𝜈 𝑒 𝑗 non-random but unknown parameter of interest Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 5

  6. MCPMod – Candidate models • Set ℳ with M parametric candidate models for the unknown dose-response shape • Model function of model 𝑛 : 𝑔 𝑛 (𝑒, 𝜾 𝑛 ) – 𝜾 𝑛 : parameter vector of model 𝑛 • 𝑔 𝑒, 𝜾 = 𝜄 0 + 𝜄 1 𝑔 0 (𝑒, 𝜾 ∗ ) – 𝑔 0 (𝑒, 𝜾 ∗ ) : standardised model – 𝜾 ∗ : parameter vector of the standardised model – 𝜄 0 : location parameter – 𝜄 1 : scale parameter • Usage of “guesstimates” for planning the trial Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 6

  7. MCPMod – PoC Test Single contrast test for testing the m-th model: : • Test statistics are jointly multivariate t-distributed with known correlation structure determined by the model contrasts  Multiplicity adjusted critical values (or adjusted p-values)  Overall significance established if • max 𝑛 𝑈 𝑛 > q • Contrast for specific model m can be optimized based on non-centrality parameter 2 𝑈 𝜈 𝑛 2 / σ 𝑗=0 𝑑 𝑛𝑗 𝐿 – 𝜐 𝑛 = 𝑏𝑠𝑕𝑛𝑏𝑦 𝑑 𝑛 𝑑 𝑛 𝑜 𝑗 • Also optimal allocation ratio derivable – Depend on characteristic of interest for optimization (D, TD-optimality) Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 7

  8. MCPMod – Model selection Reference set: all significant models • • No model significant => stop If at least one model is significant: two different possibilities: • – Select a single model of the reference set • Choose the “best” model of reference set based on a criterion • Different criteria: – Largest value of the test statistic / smallest p-value – Goodness-of-fit criterion e.g. (g)AIC or BIC – Use model averaging techniques • For each model of the reference set a model weight needs to be calculated, e.g. based on (g)AIC • Fitted model is a weighted average • Different weighting options (Schorning et al. 2016) Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 8

  9. BMCPMod - Introduction Aim: : • Include historical information into MCPMod approach • Most often for one treatment group (placebo) only – No “functional” inclusion (compare BLRM or Bayesian Emax) • Approach should mimic MCPMod results for non-informative prior – Ability to embed into general framework used Appr proac oach: h: • Use a Bayesian test procedure in the MCP step to establish PoC • Adjust the model selection and the modeling step appropriately Focus cus here: : • Bayesian version of the PoC test • Comparison with the frequentist PoC test Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 9

  10. BMCPMod - Assumptions Not change ged: • K + 1 dose groups • 𝑍 𝑗𝑘 = 𝜈 𝑒 𝑗 + 𝜗 𝑗𝑘 , 𝜗 𝑗𝑘 ∼ 𝒪(0, 𝜏 2 ) , 𝑗 = 0, … , 𝐿, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝑜 𝑗 • Error terms are assumed to be independent • Set of candidate models as defined in the MCPMod approach Cha hanged: ged: • 𝜈 𝑒𝑗 random with known variability Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 10

  11. BMCPMod – Prior information Ass ssumpt ptions ions / se setting: g: Information often restricted to one dose group (placebo) • • Non/vaguely-informative prior for other dose groups Prior generated e.g. via meta-analytic prior approach • => Fit of mixture normal prior Normal-normal conjugate model • • Independence between the dose groups is assumed Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 11

  12. BMCPMod – Mixture Prior • Assumption: mixture prior for placebo with L ( ≤ 4 ) components 𝜏 2 𝜏 2 • Plac acebo bo group: up: 𝜈 𝑒 0 ∼ 𝑥 1 𝒪 𝜄 𝑞 1 ,0 , 𝑜 𝑞1,0 + ⋯ + 𝑥 4 𝒪 𝜄 𝑞 4 ,0 , 𝑜 𝑞4,0 • Act ctive ive dose se group ups: s: conjugate normal prior (with very small ESS) • Complete 𝜈: Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 12

  13. BMCPMod – PoC test Bayesian single contrast test for model 𝑛 ∈ {1, … , 𝑁} 𝑈 𝜈 = 0 • True curve flat then: 𝑑 𝑛 𝑈 𝜈 > 0 for the posterior distribution of 𝜈 • Calculate the probability of 𝑑 𝑛 𝑈 𝜈 > 0 𝒵 > 1 − 𝛽 ∗ • Model 𝑛 is significant if: 𝑄 𝑑 𝑛 𝑈 𝜈 : • Posterior probability of 𝑑 𝑛 conjugate prior: – mixture prior: – 𝑚 : mean vector of component l of the posterior distribution of 𝜈 𝜄 𝒵 𝜐 𝑚 : variance-covariance matrix of component l of the posterior distribution of 𝜈 Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 13

  14. BMCPMod – PoC test Calc lcul ulati tion on of the Poster erior or probab obabili liti ties: • Conjugate Prior: • Mixture prior: analogous Φ : distribution function of the standard normal distribution Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 14

  15. BMCPMod – PoC test Overall te test st for PoC: 𝑈 𝜾 > 0|𝒵) • Test statistic: max 𝑛=1,…,𝑁 𝑄(𝑑 𝑛 𝑈 𝜾 > 0|𝒵) > 1 − 𝛽 ∗ , i.e. at least Test decision: PoC is established if: max • 𝑛=1,…,𝑁 𝑄(𝑑 𝑛 one of the Bayesian single contrast tests is significant • 1 − 𝛽 ∗ : a multiplicity adjusted critical value on the probability scale For the critical value ( 1 − 𝛽 ∗ ): • – use the critical value of the MCPMod approach after transforming it on the probability scale: Φ(𝑢 1−𝛽,𝑂−𝐿 𝑁 )  corresponds to the use of a non-informative prior in the Bayesian Approach – depends on the optimal contrast vectors and on the correlation matrix 𝑺 Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 15

  16. BMCPMod – Choice of contrast vector • In MCPMod optimal contrast vectors may be derived – Optimal => maximizing power under alternative – Per model • Natural approach for BMCPMod might be to use the optimal contrast vectors from MCPMod – Not necessarily optimal for BMCPMod • Random component • Might be possible to derive more optimal contrasts – E.g. via simulation – Omitted here as choice of contrast vector usually only has a minor influence on power Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 16

  17. BMCPMod – Allocation ratio • MCPMod allows for optimization of allocation ratios across treatment groups – Balanced allocation usually suboptimal – D- vsTD-Optimality vs reaching optimal power – Optimality per model => averaging • Keeping allocation ratio while adding historical information suboptimal – Similar to usual Bayesian borrowing designs • Naive/intuitive adjustment for one component prior – Compute ESS of historical information – Subtract from optimal allocation and adjust to reach original sample size again – MCPMod/non-informative: 𝐨 = (81,33,44,48,95) – Informative 1 (ESS=30): 𝐨 = 56,37,49,53,105 – Informative 2 (ESS=60): 𝐨 = 25,41,55,60,119 More complex for mixture priors • – Use mixture ESS (?) – Averaging Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 17

  18. BMCPMod – Modeling aspects • As for MCPMod different options here – Select model with largest posterior probability (for contrast test) – Use e.g. (g)AIC AIC-base sed approach replacing likelihood with posterior (either select or average) – Average across models with significant Bayes test • Via posterior probabilities (for contrast test) • Use Bayesian model averaging / Bayes factors across/within different models – Average via (stratified) bootstrapping / bagging • Bootstrap model selection and average across bootstrap predictions Bayesian MCPMod, Göttingen Dec 2018 18

Recommend


More recommend