Investigator

Hormuzd A Katki

Department Of Health And Human Services

HAKHormuzd A Katki
Papers(6)
Efficient risk-based …Increasing power in s…Retracted and Replace…Statistical approache…Sample‐weighted semip…The Improving Risk In…
Collaborators(10)
Philip E CastlePaul F PinskyNancy PoitrasNoorie HyunPaul S. AlbertThomas LoreyYongli HanAnil K ChaturvediBarry I GraubardBrian Befano
Institutions(6)
Department Of Health …National Institutes o…Kaiser PermanenteMedical College Of Wi…Division Of Cancer Ep…University Of Washing…

Papers

Increasing power in screening trials by testing control-arm specimens: application to multicancer detection screening

Abstract Background Cancer screening trials have required large sample sizes and long time-horizons to demonstrate cancer mortality reductions, the primary goal of cancer screening. We examine assumptions and potential power gains from exploiting information from testing control-arm specimens, which we call the “intended effect” (IE) analysis that we explain in detail herein. The IE analysis is particularly suited to tests that can be conducted on stored specimens in the control arm, such as stored blood for multicancer detection (MCD) tests. Methods We simulated hypothetical MCD screening trials to compare power and sample size for the standard vs IE analysis. Under two assumptions that we detail herein, we projected the IE analysis for 3 existing screening trials (National Lung Screening Trial [NLST], Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [MINN-FOBT-A], and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial—colorectal component [PLCO-CRC]). Results Compared with the standard analysis for the 3 existing trials, the IE design could have reduced cancer-specific mortality P values 6-fold (NLST), 33-fold (MINN-FOBT-A), or 260 000-fold (PLCO-CRC) or, alternately, reduced sample size (90% power) by 25% (NLST), 47% (MINN-FOBT-A), or 63% (PLCO-CRC). For potential MCD trial designs requiring 100 000 subjects per arm to achieve 90% power for multicancer mortality for the standard analysis, the IE analysis achieves 90% power for only 37 500-50 000 per arm, depending on assumptions concerning control-arm test-positives. Conclusions Testing stored specimens in the control arm of screening trials to conduct the IE analysis could substantially increase power to reduce sample size or accelerate trials and could provide particularly strong power gains for MCD tests.

Retracted and Replaced: Increasing power in screening trials by testing control-arm specimens: application to multicancer detection screening

Abstract Background Cancer screening trials have required large sample sizes and long time-horizons to demonstrate cancer mortality reductions, the primary goal of cancer screening. We examine assumptions and potential power gains from exploiting information from testing control-arm specimens, which we call the “intended effect” (IE) analysis that we explain in detail herein. The IE analysis is particularly suited to tests that can be conducted on stored specimens in the control arm, such as stored blood for multicancer detection (MCD) tests. Methods We simulated hypothetical MCD screening trials to compare power and sample size for the standard vs IE analysis. Under two assumptions that we detail herein, we projected the IE analysis for 3 existing screening trials (National Lung Screening Trial [NLST], Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [MINN-FOBT-A], and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial—colorectal component [PLCO-CRC]). Results Compared with the standard analysis for the 3 existing trials, the IE design could have reduced cancer-specific mortality P values 5-fold (NLST), 33-fold (MINN-FOBT-A), or 14 160-fold (PLCO-CRC) or, alternately, reduced sample size (90% power) by 26% (NLST), 48% (MINN-FOBT-A), or 59% (PLCO-CRC). For potential MCD trial designs requiring 100 000 subjects per arm to achieve 90% power for multicancer mortality for the standard analysis, the IE analysis achieves 90% power for only 37 500-50 000 per arm, depending on assumptions concerning control-arm test-positives. Conclusions Testing stored specimens in the control arm of screening trials to conduct the IE analysis could substantially increase power to reduce sample size or accelerate trials and could provide particularly strong power gains for MCD tests.

Statistical approaches using longitudinal biomarkers for disease early detection: A comparison of methodologies

Early detection of clinical outcomes such as cancer may be predicted using longitudinal biomarker measurements. Tracking longitudinal biomarkers as a way to identify early disease onset may help to reduce mortality from diseases like ovarian cancer that are more treatable if detected early. Two disease risk prediction frameworks, the shared random effects model (SREM) and the pattern mixture model (PMM) could be used to assess longitudinal biomarkers on disease early detection. In this article, we studied the discrimination and calibration performances of SREM and PMM on disease early detection through an application to ovarian cancer, where early detection using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) has been evaluated. Comparisons of the above three approaches were performed via analyses of the ovarian cancer data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Discrimination was evaluated by the time‐dependent receiver operating characteristic curve and its area, while calibration was assessed using calibration plot and the ratio of observed to expected number of diseased subjects. The out‐of‐sample performances were calculated via using leave‐one‐out cross‐validation, aiming to minimize potential model overfitting. A careful analysis of using the biomarker cancer antigen 125 for ovarian cancer early detection showed significantly improved discrimination performance of PMM as compared with SREM and ROCA, nevertheless all approaches were generally well calibrated. Robustness of all approaches was further investigated in extensive simulation studies. The improved performance of PMM relative to ROCA is in part due to the fact that the biomarker measurements were taken at a yearly interval, which is not frequent enough to reliably estimate the changepoint or the slope after changepoint in cases under ROCA.

Sample‐weighted semiparametric estimation of cause‐specific cumulative risk and incidence using left‐ or interval‐censored data from electronic health records

Electronic health records (EHRs) can be a cost‐effective data source for forming cohorts and developing risk models in the context of disease screening. However, important issues need to be handled: competing outcomes, left‐censoring of prevalent disease, interval‐censoring of incident disease, and uncertainty of prevalent disease when accurate disease ascertainment is not conducted at baseline. Furthermore, novel tests that are costly and limited in availability can be conducted on stored biospecimens selected as samples from EHRs by using different sampling fractions. We extend sample‐weighted semiparametric marginal mixture models to estimating competing risks. For flexible modeling of relative risks, a general transformation of the subdistribution hazard function and regression parameters is used. We propose a numerical algorithm for nonparametrically calculating the maximum likelihood estimates for subdistribution hazard functions and regression parameters. Methods for calculating the consistent confidence intervals for relative and absolute risk estimates are presented. The proposed algorithm and methods show reliable finite sample performance through simulation studies. We apply our methods to a cohort assembled from EHRs at a health maintenance organization where we estimate cumulative risk of cervical precancer/cancer and incidence of infection‐clearance by HPV genotype among human papillomavirus (HPV) positive women. There is no significant difference in 3‐year HPV‐clearance rates across different HPV types, but 3‐year cumulative risk of progression‐to‐precancer/cancer from HPV‐16 is relatively higher than the other HPV genotypes.

The Improving Risk Informed HPV Screening (IRIS) Study: Design and Baseline Characteristics

Abstract Background: Cervical cancer screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing is being introduced. Most HrHPV infections are transient, requiring triage tests to identify individuals at highest risk for progression to cervical cancer. Head-to-head comparisons of available strategies for screening and triage are needed. Endometrial and ovarian cancers could be amenable to similar testing. Methods: Between 2016 and 2020, discarded cervical cancer screening specimens from women ages 25 to 65 undergoing screening at Kaiser Permanente Northern California were collected. Specimens were aliquoted, stabilized, and stored frozen. Human papillomavirus (HPV), cytology, and histopathology results as well as demographic and cofactor information were obtained from electronic medical records (EMR). Follow-up collection of specimens was conducted for 2 years, and EMR-based data collection was planned for 5 years. Results: Collection of enrollment and follow-up specimens is complete, and EMR-based follow-up data collection is ongoing. At baseline, specimens were collected from 54,957 HPV-positive, 10,215 HPV-negative/Pap-positive, and 12,748 HPV-negative/Pap-negative women. Clinical history prior to baseline was available for 72.6% of individuals, of which 53.9% were undergoing routine screening, 8.6% recently had an abnormal screen, 30.3% had previous colposcopy, and 7.2% had previous treatment. As of February 2021, 55.7% had one or more colposcopies, yielding 5,563 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), 2,756 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3), and 146 cancer histopathology diagnoses. Conclusions: This robust population-based cohort study represents all stages of cervical cancer screening, management, and posttreatment follow-up. Impact: The IRIS study is a unique and highly relevant resource allowing for natural history studies and rigorous evaluation of candidate HrHPV screening and triage markers, while permitting studies of biomarkers associated with other gynecologic cancers.

6Papers
13Collaborators
Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsNeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsColorectal NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsOropharyngeal Neoplasms